The fact that the nuclear DNA was not able to be recovered does not necessarily mean it isn't human. It just means the DNA was not able to be recovered.
@falcont2t The 2011 DNA test was carried out by the starchild project. Why would I trust it? Get someone who hasn't any vested interest in the results to do it and publish in a peer reviewed journal, and then get someone ELSE who has no vested interested to do some tests and publish, and so on, and so on.
@narfanoid thats why we wont know the truth. even if it isnt human we wont know for sure if they are lying or its real, with all the fakes that we have those days...
@falcont2t Human DNA was determined to have been found in the starchild skull. An X from mommy, and a Y from daddy. Human. There is no reason to assume it isn't human. The bones are no different in composition than those of you or me. Those who support the "alien" theory are making too big a deal of the deformities. They are propagating nothing more than spaced-out opinion.
@narfanoid What about the fact that it is half as thick, weighs half as much, but is 2 or 3 x harder than a human skull? What about the fact that the neck is half the size of a human neck? What about facial deformities non-human? And the failed DNA recovery attempts 6 x? Why couldn't it be recovered?
@passerby26 These are all questions that need logical, rational answers. They shouldn't be treated as though this skull automatically MUST come from an alien, or from some "unknown human species", or something otherwise unfounded and irrational. Tell me; why was I not able to recover DNA from the samples of organic material that came from an archaeological excavation of a First Nations site in North East Canada?
@narfanoid Alien merely means foreign; not of native human origin. Unless there is some species with human-like characteristics hiding out yet undiscovered on earth, it's safe to presume it's alien. We can call it alien or we can call it "unknown", it's just semantics. But it ain't human. I have no idea why you weren't able to recover DNA from a First Nations site.
@passerby26 Yes, "alien" does mean foreign, I know that. Can you point me to any known species or subspecies of human who show the characteristics of those found in the skull? If not, then it would make more sense to assume FIRST that it is a human, of human parents, who happens to have been born with some deformity. The reason I didn't get DNA from the material was due to the age of the material. Furthermore, DNA from this skull has been found to be human, if you read the peer review stuff.
@narfanoid Which characteristics are that of a human skull? That it is 2-3 x harder than a human skull but half as thick? That the neck stem is not human at all? If these features and others DO NOT resemble a human skull, then why would you assume it's human? You've got the logic backwards.
If the peer reviewed DNA has found it to be human, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Your previous post was that these questions need logical answers. Can you point me to the literature?
@passerby26 Do you mean to tell me you haven't even read the peer review reports of the DNA analysis? Are you placing all your opinion of this skull based on the propaganda you get from those who claim it's not human? If that's the case then perhaps you need to do some research outside those forums.
@narfanoid The problem is I can't find any peer reviewed reports on it, that's why I'm asking you where you found them. I'm basing my opinion on the physical characteristics of it. I'm not closed-minded about it. If there's peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise, I would like to read it.
@narfanoid Actually, I looked previously, but gave another look since our conversation thinking maybe I missed something. So, can you direct me to the peer reviewed literature that exists on this?
@passerby26 Did you notice that when I started posting I never said there was peer review, but rather asked for links to such literature myself? Only after that did I start going on about the peer review stuff. In other words, I was pointing out that YOU can't supply any peer review material that supports the alien DNA nonsense. In other words I made YOU admit that there isn't any dependable research to support the alien claims. It's human. It has been determined to be human from the DNA.
@passerby26 Tell me why you say it "ain't human". Can you substantiate that claim with facts, rather than assumptions? Keep in mind, the peer review material says the DNA is human. It's only non peer review that says otherwise.
there was a special on the history about this. this skull was found on a mountain top by an indian girl and they put clay on a model and made a face. very humanoid-like
This idiot is lying they have done several DNA tests over the years and that skull is of a male child 4-5 years of age and it is 100% human. The deformation of the skull was most likely caused by congenital hydrocephalus.
His claim that they could not match the DNA of the father is bullshit. It has both the x and y from both parents.
Read the book of Enoch-these are Nephilim, fallen angels that mixed with men. The American Indians used their hands to great each other with, "HOW" to make sure you didn't have six fingers (which the Nephilim did)-an old Indian shared this on a library video. It's all in the bible. God shows his Word is true.
so many want to believe in intelligent aliens, though not sure why...since i guarantee u will not see one in your lifetime or ever, besides some microscopic lifeforms on other planets!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is the so called 'STARCHILD SKULL'. Here is the truth (easily found on the net) about the DNA tests done so far:
DNA tests in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, found standard X and Y chromosomes in 2 samples taken from the skull, conclusive evidence that the child was human, male, and both parents were human as well.
Potential explanations for the skull's unusual features, include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child, brachycephaly and Crouzon syndrome. (wiki)
Look, I believe there are most likely aliens, I'm even willing to believe some of them, given existence, have visited earth (possibly). But why the fuck are the comments of the one guy who's made by far the most sense all hidden by downvotes? Are you serious? Wow, you're just as bad as people who believe in organized religion. Believe anything you're told. He made a bunch of valid points questioning this, as well he should. And most to all of his pts were valid too. Good job failboats.
@rehsab01 There are peer reviewed publications. The peer reviewed ones are the ones that say it's human, because that's the DNA that was recovered from it.
Well I have enough knowledge in genetics to understand what is generally referred to as the "haplogroup-paradox". And I asked friends of mine who study biology what they think of the starchild skull and so far, some dismiss it completely, others got more curious, and others do not care. There is basic knowledge in biology you learn here in europe in high school which make it possible to define mitochondrial DNA and basic concepts of genetics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 OK, fine then. Let's talk biology. Why in the first DNA test done, was there found both X and Y chromosomes, if the Y chromosome can only come from the father? This test concluded that the skull was of a human child based on this. Question: How can both X and Y chromosome be present and yet there exist non-human DNA?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 Let's talk more biology. DNA has evolved on Earth for millions of years and is the single mode of transmission of genetic information across generations of sexuallly reproducing species. How could an alien species mate with any organism of Earth with a totally incompatible genetic blueprint? If this skull was not a child, but an adult hybrid, why did it not reproduce and with that, there be evidence of this along the lineage? Why was only one skull found?
@Gonko100 If you have, as you claim, an understanding of "basic concepts of genetics", then upon what basis can you conclude, as you have, that this skull is ""definitely NOT HUMAN"? These are your words. There is no evidence to support this at all. Such information has never been published in any credible scientific journal and there is not a single scientist on this planet who has ever agreed with your assertion that the DNA is not human.
Not sure what kind of education you claim to have.
And by the way, the assumption that every science journal dismissed the starchild case is bollocks. The science adaption of "Spiegel" had a large report on this case and didn't draw the ultimate and absolute conclusions like you did. Which I don't do either. I don't claim its extraterrestrial. No one here besides pye does that. But even the Spiegel report remained unconclusive and and a bit mystified. So stop swearing on my profile and attacking my persona.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 By the way, I never swore on your profile as you have accused me of. That happened to be someone else who had an issue with your comments. Again, evidence is a handy thing to have.
I'm german, so english is not my native language. Therefore, I rest my case. Cheap shot anyway. "Your limitations belong not to me." I can tell by that comment what kind of an pseudo-sophisticated fucktard you are.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 If you don't speak English as a first language, don't try to look like a smart guy using it.
Here is a fact: You do not have any education in science at a university level, and therefore, you are amking an idiot out of yourself for discussing the topic by simply copying and pasting the BS that you found on Pye's website.
There has NEVER been evidence presented in a manner that is consistent with science, that demonstrates that this skull is non-human. NEVER.
Well,I study sociology and economics,not genetics,so therefore I might not have the insight into this subject like you have.I assume by the level of your arrogance,that you yourself study genetics?And I repeat myself,I heard about that skull at university and didn't know the name pye before I came across this video.I'm just interested in this topic, which is legit thing to do. And it just came to my attention because of the possible haplogroup-paradox, which you didn't expand on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 So you don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you? When you get the education in science, then comment. Try to avoid swearing so that you don't look like a goof.
There is no evidence that has ever been demonstrated to support this BS. This is nonsense and not a single scientist has ever agreed with this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 When you use terms such as "haplogroup-paradox", and do so in such a way as to imply something anomolous, then you must possess the education by which you can understand explanations.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 Think about what you just said to me. You call it a "cheap shot" that I point out your use of English when you swear at me. But what is more important than your use of English, is your understanding of science. How can you talk about genetics and come to conslusions about this skull without the education? You know nothing about science! Not a single expert has ever come forward and agreed with Pye. Not a single word has ever been published in a scientific journal, EVER. Dope!
a descendant of the haplogroup - M- indigenious phylogenetics. The mitochondrial DNA derives directly from the mother, and by that I mean the woman who carried the foetus. The extracted X-Chromosoms in 2004 but showed patterns of haplogroup -A-, that means, that the female contributor of the human sex chromosome might, I say MIGHT, have been another individual than the donator of the of the mitochondrial haplogroup. That could implicate a foreign fecundation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 Tell me the part about why you have copied and pasted directly from Pye's webiste all this drivel and yet you don't know what you are talking about....Why is that?
Why haven't you simply dealt with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that this skull is in any way non-human? Why is there not a single scientist on Planet Earth who agrees with your (Pye's) conclusion that this skull is anything but human?
because you lack some education. I don't care about Pye, he is probably a poor old bastard, but the "retarded baby skull" theory is idiotic if you look a little into this subject. So, I rest my case. Go fuck yourselves if your ignorance and arrogance makes you dismiss blindly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 No one has described the skull as being "retarded", as it is not possible to infer intelligence directly from this skull. What has been provided, by any expert who has ever commented, is the assertion that the skull was of a child, who died at the age of about 5yo, who had a rare form of cranial deformity.
There is no evidence of anything more than that. Sorry pal, but people pursue an education to avoid your pathway of blind ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about.
It seems that you're really a bit drunk with your profanity of dismissal. You didn't elaborate on any of my raised questions, since I didn't come this skull across by pye but by our decan.
You are, and I mean that in all kindness, missing one important point. Since you didn't come up with any specific points, kept on bitching and tried to evaluate your seemingly sophisticated point of view, I will give you nevertheless another try.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 What language is this and what are you trying to express?..." You didn't elaborate on any of my raised questions, since I didn't come this skull across by pye but by our decan."
What is your question and why can't you get the education to answer it like everyone else who has gone to university? Your limitations don't belong to me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 Now you have used another sentence, or phrase, "The child's mitochondrial pattern belonged to".
What is the evidence that this child's DNA was anything at all? What do you know about genetics anyway? You are speaking like an uneducated retard. go to university and get the education like everyone else who does and can then call themselves KNOWLEDGEABLE.
Tell me the part about you knowing what you are talking about.
DNA extracted, although short strings, have strictly unusual patterns for humanoids. At this point its argueable, that the extraction of the father DNA hasn't been fully successful, and it's to soon to make and ultimate statement, although the fact that diameter of der skull's boneplates is 50% thicker than the human one. I told everyone to go fuck themselves because there has been no dismissal of the skull and every self appointed sceptic agent of ratio acts like questioning this phenomena is
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 You are repeating the same mumbo-jumbo that you have read on Pye's website. When you use profanities, your credibility dissovles as it reveals you for an ignorant uneducated turd.
There has never been evidence presented that demonstrate that this skull is in any way of non-human origin.
Instead of showing how stupid and gullible you are, why not go to university and get a science degree? While you are there, ask your genetics prof to spend some remedial time with you?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There has never been evidence demonstrated to suggest that the skull is in any way, non-human. That is not science, but the wishful thinking of a guy trying to sell books to fools with no education.
"... real true bone skull, but all the bone is half as thick. it weighs half as much, yet it's three times as hard ..."
So its made from bone, but not real normal bone ... Seriously, how stupid do you think people are. For what you say to be true, this skull would have to be made out of completely different material.
and if it was, it would be the most amazing archaeological find of the century and they certainly wouldn't let you handle it. Get a life Simone!
this is what they ment by having skeletons in the closet, everyone has seen freaks in a sideshow and so was this guy. pretty nice he lived to be an adult but nothing short then the hunchback from notredam
@Illzenithill I don't see any molars here. I see no teeth at all. Is there an associated maxilla or mandible? Yes, nuclear DNA has been extracted from much older remains (e.g., Neandertals), but the conditions have to be just right and it is very difficult to do. If the no-nuclear-DNA criterion was applied to determine extraterrestrial status, then you'd end up calling 100s of human skeletons from archaeological sites "alien" simply because the nuclear DNA was too degraded to extract.
bullshit i dont believe ... dont believe in them 100% i believe that they exist somewhere in space that for sure but not on earth or near while i not see in my own eyes never wil believe or atleas some real avidence not Cgi or somekind shit
his mother was drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco too much when she was pregnant ending up into congenital defects making the creatures skull like that
This is a human child's skull that is probably pathological. Because it exists in much higher quantities in human cells (1000s per cell), mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from only mom) is relatively easy to extract from ancient bone, while nuclear DNA (1 copy per cell and inherited from both mom and dad) is very difficult and frequently impossible even in the best labs. Thus, it's not surprising that nuclear DNA could not be extracted.
@AnthroSkeptic its molars differ physiologically than ours and are fully developed which is why it has been concluded to be an adult. nuclear dna is more difficult to extract than mitochondrial, but its been done with remains thousands of years older than the starchild skull which is 900 yrs so recent technology easily allows 4 the extraction of nuclear dna from a well preserved 900 yr old skull. the fact that it couldnt be extracted is indicative of unidentifiable and thus unknown dna
@AnthroSkeptic its not a human childs skull because they found teeth that were fully formed and had long roots so they determined that it was a mature being
Just one question that would leave doubt in my mind...where the hell did he get the skull from? Did he just walk in his backyard one mornin sippin his coffee and go- Oh theres an alien head lol no! Seriously tho where the fuck did he find that thing
I saw a skull like that in a museum in Lima,Peru-alot of the mummies had deformed skulls but that was custom by the natives to bind their heads (usually from a toddler to teenage years) Even the Flathead natives in North America used to bind their skulls. Imagine binding a hydrocephalitis baby...
@456train456 once again you use an argument completely out of context and have set up a straw man argument. You really must read through Lloyds website to at least arm yourself with the correct ammunition. You should also look at “Starchild DNA results” that way you will know just a little bit more! Intervention is where off world beings carry out genetic modifications. Starchild DNA results video explain that the Starchild is completely alien with a human surrogate giving it mtDNA but no nDNA
The mitochondrial dna was found to be human. the rest was NOT IDENTIFIED. i researched starchild a while. it is definitely NOT HUMAN. everyone telling you the opposite doesn't know enough about this subject and should keep his fukkkkking mouth shut.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 How much do you know about forensic DNA analysis? Perhaps before telling everyone to f-off, you should get the edcuation? Simply because on one occasion, on a 900yo skull specimen, it was not possible to get a complete sample of DNA, does not all of a sudden make the skull, "definitely NOT HUMAN". Where does the logic work in that? Sorry pal, but that is why scientists and everyone else who actually gets to say that they are knowledgeable, go to UNIVERSITY and get the education.
Ok. First: The radio-carbon-method stated the age of the skull to at least 900 years. The position of the Canalis Opticus, mr. educated sceptic, has cranial adjustment, which cannot be provided by mutation. His frontal sinus is completely missing, and for the hydrocephalus-syndrom the symmetry is too precise. The Crouzon- and Apert- Syndroms have both been dismissed.
The mitochondrial DNA, which is only provided by the mother, was human. It is stated, the intact samples of father
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Gonko100 I agree that I have also read the skull to be 900yo. Your comments regarding morphology are not derived from your own expertise, byt instead, you are repeating the same BS that comes from one source, Pye's website. A deformity does not constitute an origina that is non-human.
As for the DNA analysis, again, you are not commenting from a postion of knowledge, but of what you are repeating from the same source. Absence of intact DNA does not equal evidence of anything but absence.
Gets you thinking, if it had non human dna, and it was twice as thick and strong but only half the weight. How come we havent heard about this in the news or it being a revolutionary discovery of any sort named in historybooks?
And there you go 100% proof and people still question and denie a simple fact.....yes simple....go belive in invisable men in the sky.....you die and break down to minerals and have a guy hold your head 1000 years later
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MrMythbuster1, it's not a monkey skull, it's DNA test showed it had a human mother......no test for the father's DNA could be done.
Lloyd thinks the pecularities of the skull must come from an Extra Terrestrial, I myself think that it is much more likely to be just a deformed baby.
Lots of deformed babies and some living humans can look non human at first glance......remember Tree man and his pals......if they suddenly turned up in someones house, they probably think aliens had landed!
i see a ducumentary on discovery chanel ....the guy said in that documantary that he found it in a cave and acording to the local village a young grild (17-21 years) has born a very starnge child that has die after he born ahe nd shide it in the cave ..i dont know what to say maybe its just a grave malformation...
Based on the structure of this skull i would say this individual was missing the Reptilian area of the brain. Meaning it probably evolved somewhere other than earth. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe Aliens are observing us as we do with wild animals.
That's why they never interfere. Their technology and civilization is so much ahead of us that's there is no need for them to get into contact since they have nothing to learn from us. We are just a curiosity for them and a matter of study.
It could just be a deformed baby skull that was slightly fossilized causing it to be mutated and abnormally hard. Maybe it was also malnurished, causing its skull to be thinner than normal. Also, if they didn't discover the nuclear DNA, that doesn't mean that they know for a fact that it is subhuman. I definately need more evidence and proof that this is a skull from a mixed human alien creature.
i rekon the dinosaurs died becoz aliens knew about our independent learning abilities and how we were able to develope clothes and weapons but at that time dinosaurs would of been the only threat to us humans so aliens wiped them out so that we have room to evolve and advance with out haveing to worry about being killed by the dinosaurs..thats my theory becoz there is nothing on earth more violent then us now and i doubt that we could of survived all those dinos runing around with out help
@weedysmyplant I pretty much agree to your teory cuz some people say that humans were once friends with aliens but its all theorys and unprooved stuff but there is one thing which is the key to it all Area 51
@BritneyAddicted4EVA I'm not sure if they were all giants....the bible says "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." It doesn't say that they were giants but that giants exsisted with them. I also think these nephilim are where we get the stories of the 'gods' (hurculies, zeus etc)
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
@cwl82 Thank you, especially for making a point to read it in context. I don't know how I have never seen that verse. However that bit (6:1-5) seems rather out of place there, like it's unrelated with previous or following verses. Do you think so?
poor alien that died
aggresiveskate9 1 week ago
Uh..hydrocephalus. Next!
apstlcpwr 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheUmbreon0 2 months ago
Sweet! Finally, scientific proof of extraterestrials!
Loveoftheoutdoors 2 months ago
I have a great urge to lick that skull.
sphinxart 3 months ago
That Vid Rocked TT Nice work.
Kentuckymadness1 3 months ago
I didnt knew some cultures stretch their heads to imitate masters in space... weird.
88Phobos 4 months ago
I dunno about this I would love to see the skull before believing.....im guessing that there is a genetoc defect I am jist guessing here
Shadowmage18 6 months ago
@Topmostpop "Fallen angels"? Are you serious?
narfanoid 6 months ago
How does he make the leap from unrecoverable DNA to proof of alien life? One does that mean every mummy that had no recoverable DNA are also aliens?
croutonfada 7 months ago
I have proof of ALIENS ...BE READY FOR WHAT YOU WILL SEE.Best evidence on earth ..BETTER THAN ANY PROOF ON EARTH...I HEAR THEM
stanley03061973 7 months ago
the professor is good looking..
mlvtje 7 months ago
@innominehumanitas it was a replica of the skull
GeNiUsS3 8 months ago
The fact that the nuclear DNA was not able to be recovered does not necessarily mean it isn't human. It just means the DNA was not able to be recovered.
narfanoid 8 months ago
@narfanoid it is a skull, and its dna doesnt match any earth living animal patron, search for the 2011 studies and you will see.
it may not be alien, but it isnt human.
falcont2t 7 months ago
@falcont2t I think if you do some homework outside the paranormal websites you will find that DNA testing actually found this to be a human skull.
narfanoid 7 months ago
@narfanoid i bet you didnt checked out the 2011 dna test
falcont2t 7 months ago
@falcont2t Got a link to some peer reviewed literature?
narfanoid 7 months ago
@falcont2t The 2011 DNA test was carried out by the starchild project. Why would I trust it? Get someone who hasn't any vested interest in the results to do it and publish in a peer reviewed journal, and then get someone ELSE who has no vested interested to do some tests and publish, and so on, and so on.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@narfanoid thats why we wont know the truth. even if it isnt human we wont know for sure if they are lying or its real, with all the fakes that we have those days...
falcont2t 6 months ago
@falcont2t Human DNA was determined to have been found in the starchild skull. An X from mommy, and a Y from daddy. Human. There is no reason to assume it isn't human. The bones are no different in composition than those of you or me. Those who support the "alien" theory are making too big a deal of the deformities. They are propagating nothing more than spaced-out opinion.
narfanoid 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narfanoid "Did you notice that when I started posting I never said there was peer review, but rather asked for links to such literature myself?"
This is what you wrote just 1 day ago:
"Keep in mind, the peer review material says the DNA is human. It's only non peer review that says otherwise."
So is there peer reviewed literature that says it's human, or is there no peer reviewed literature at all? I'm confused.
passerby26 6 months ago
@narfanoid
Did you even watch the video? They were not able to extract half of the DNA through 6 attempts.
rexmcnish 6 months ago
@rexmcnish What part of that fact makes it an alien skull?
narfanoid 6 months ago
@rexmcnish DNA clearly WAS extracted, because it is KNOWN to have HUMAN DNA. What part of reality did you not watch?
narfanoid 6 months ago
@falcont2t In fact, the DNA does match human DNA. It has a Y from a human daddy, and an X from a human mommy.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@narfanoid What about the fact that it is half as thick, weighs half as much, but is 2 or 3 x harder than a human skull? What about the fact that the neck is half the size of a human neck? What about facial deformities non-human? And the failed DNA recovery attempts 6 x? Why couldn't it be recovered?
passerby26 6 months ago
@passerby26 These are all questions that need logical, rational answers. They shouldn't be treated as though this skull automatically MUST come from an alien, or from some "unknown human species", or something otherwise unfounded and irrational. Tell me; why was I not able to recover DNA from the samples of organic material that came from an archaeological excavation of a First Nations site in North East Canada?
narfanoid 6 months ago
@narfanoid Alien merely means foreign; not of native human origin. Unless there is some species with human-like characteristics hiding out yet undiscovered on earth, it's safe to presume it's alien. We can call it alien or we can call it "unknown", it's just semantics. But it ain't human. I have no idea why you weren't able to recover DNA from a First Nations site.
passerby26 6 months ago
@passerby26 Yes, "alien" does mean foreign, I know that. Can you point me to any known species or subspecies of human who show the characteristics of those found in the skull? If not, then it would make more sense to assume FIRST that it is a human, of human parents, who happens to have been born with some deformity. The reason I didn't get DNA from the material was due to the age of the material. Furthermore, DNA from this skull has been found to be human, if you read the peer review stuff.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@narfanoid Which characteristics are that of a human skull? That it is 2-3 x harder than a human skull but half as thick? That the neck stem is not human at all? If these features and others DO NOT resemble a human skull, then why would you assume it's human? You've got the logic backwards.
If the peer reviewed DNA has found it to be human, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Your previous post was that these questions need logical answers. Can you point me to the literature?
passerby26 6 months ago
@passerby26 Do you mean to tell me you haven't even read the peer review reports of the DNA analysis? Are you placing all your opinion of this skull based on the propaganda you get from those who claim it's not human? If that's the case then perhaps you need to do some research outside those forums.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@narfanoid The problem is I can't find any peer reviewed reports on it, that's why I'm asking you where you found them. I'm basing my opinion on the physical characteristics of it. I'm not closed-minded about it. If there's peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise, I would like to read it.
passerby26 6 months ago
@passerby26 Did I get you looking for peer review material on the starchild? Bet you didn't find any. LOL
narfanoid 6 months ago
@narfanoid Actually, I looked previously, but gave another look since our conversation thinking maybe I missed something. So, can you direct me to the peer reviewed literature that exists on this?
passerby26 6 months ago
@passerby26 Did you notice that when I started posting I never said there was peer review, but rather asked for links to such literature myself? Only after that did I start going on about the peer review stuff. In other words, I was pointing out that YOU can't supply any peer review material that supports the alien DNA nonsense. In other words I made YOU admit that there isn't any dependable research to support the alien claims. It's human. It has been determined to be human from the DNA.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@passerby26 Tell me why you say it "ain't human". Can you substantiate that claim with facts, rather than assumptions? Keep in mind, the peer review material says the DNA is human. It's only non peer review that says otherwise.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@passerby26 The bones were determined long ago to be made of the same stuff human bones are made of.
narfanoid 6 months ago
Look up 'anencephalic baby' and you'll probably believe something like this skull did exist.
DccSawcy 8 months ago
there was a special on the history about this. this skull was found on a mountain top by an indian girl and they put clay on a model and made a face. very humanoid-like
jewelfewel 9 months ago
so we have aliens raping woman. now i have more things to worry about
elliments 9 months ago
this tipe of skull is cald water on the skull
puffz1000 9 months ago
it could just be a deformed human. hello but we do have those in the world..
amzd10 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This idiot is lying they have done several DNA tests over the years and that skull is of a male child 4-5 years of age and it is 100% human. The deformation of the skull was most likely caused by congenital hydrocephalus.
His claim that they could not match the DNA of the father is bullshit. It has both the x and y from both parents.
HunterCO1 10 months ago
@HunterCO1 R u a doctor or r u just jealous?
sameerazad 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sameerazad Are you a fucking moron??? Never mind you just answered that!!!
HunterCO1 10 months ago
@HunterCO1 i think he is aswell so he should delete that because there are no such things as aliens.
caitlinpro 8 months ago
Read the book of Enoch-these are Nephilim, fallen angels that mixed with men. The American Indians used their hands to great each other with, "HOW" to make sure you didn't have six fingers (which the Nephilim did)-an old Indian shared this on a library video. It's all in the bible. God shows his Word is true.
studentinlearning 10 months ago
@studentinlearning What was it called?
Theaxe999 10 months ago
You stole Chicken Boys Skull !! You Bastards !!!!
MrMicraphone 10 months ago
wow!thats so realistic and astonoshing!!!!!!!!!!!
batman13110 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hydrocephalic Child 100% not a fucking alien. They did get DNA and it is Human.
MrUS1972 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrUS1972 provide where you got this info just don't blurt it out....
slumberingsam 9 months ago
Could of been deformed.
Klunk234 10 months ago
so many want to believe in intelligent aliens, though not sure why...since i guarantee u will not see one in your lifetime or ever, besides some microscopic lifeforms on other planets!
jamiegirl27 11 months ago
Too much technology these days. I don't know what to believe anymore. But it is spookier to think it is real. : )
divah2divah 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the so called 'STARCHILD SKULL'. Here is the truth (easily found on the net) about the DNA tests done so far:
DNA tests in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, found standard X and Y chromosomes in 2 samples taken from the skull, conclusive evidence that the child was human, male, and both parents were human as well.
Potential explanations for the skull's unusual features, include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child, brachycephaly and Crouzon syndrome. (wiki)
MindlessMeatPuppet 11 months ago
it maybe the scull of a downsyndrome chimpanzze or somthing? could be anything, the earth's a big place to foster all types of strange life
bloty02 11 months ago
Look, I believe there are most likely aliens, I'm even willing to believe some of them, given existence, have visited earth (possibly). But why the fuck are the comments of the one guy who's made by far the most sense all hidden by downvotes? Are you serious? Wow, you're just as bad as people who believe in organized religion. Believe anything you're told. He made a bunch of valid points questioning this, as well he should. And most to all of his pts were valid too. Good job failboats.
fatalassassin7 1 year ago
Plasticized Technology
keklingkia 1 year ago
i saw the documetary, is not an alien
braveryhawk 1 year ago
or this entire thing was set up. scepticism aside, fascinating
bluefly28 1 year ago
how do we know this skull wasnt created in some lab somewhere to force this alien agenda bull shit
bluefly28 1 year ago
@bluefly28 google lloyd pye and go to his website and watch his videos
iwanalotamarijuana 1 year ago 5
Why no "scientific peer review"? Check this: watch?v=ePUy4npHOmQ
Simply said, due to current dogmatic science policies will not touch highly extraordinary (or "controversial") subjects.
rehsab01 1 year ago 9
@rehsab01 dogmatic ??i think you mean strict standards of proof!!
mugwamp4 11 months ago
@rehsab01 There are peer reviewed publications. The peer reviewed ones are the ones that say it's human, because that's the DNA that was recovered from it.
narfanoid 6 months ago
@rehsab01
Science has no dogma, no peer review because no-one has paid for one
excession444 2 months ago
Well I have enough knowledge in genetics to understand what is generally referred to as the "haplogroup-paradox". And I asked friends of mine who study biology what they think of the starchild skull and so far, some dismiss it completely, others got more curious, and others do not care. There is basic knowledge in biology you learn here in europe in high school which make it possible to define mitochondrial DNA and basic concepts of genetics.
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 OK, fine then. Let's talk biology. Why in the first DNA test done, was there found both X and Y chromosomes, if the Y chromosome can only come from the father? This test concluded that the skull was of a human child based on this. Question: How can both X and Y chromosome be present and yet there exist non-human DNA?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Explain then "haplogroup-paradox" within the context of this discussion. How does this imply in any way that the DNA is non-human?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 I also asked you to provide the citation of the article that you claimed was in Spiegel.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Let's talk more biology. DNA has evolved on Earth for millions of years and is the single mode of transmission of genetic information across generations of sexuallly reproducing species. How could an alien species mate with any organism of Earth with a totally incompatible genetic blueprint? If this skull was not a child, but an adult hybrid, why did it not reproduce and with that, there be evidence of this along the lineage? Why was only one skull found?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gonko100 If you have, as you claim, an understanding of "basic concepts of genetics", then upon what basis can you conclude, as you have, that this skull is ""definitely NOT HUMAN"? These are your words. There is no evidence to support this at all. Such information has never been published in any credible scientific journal and there is not a single scientist on this planet who has ever agreed with your assertion that the DNA is not human.
Not sure what kind of education you claim to have.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
And by the way, the assumption that every science journal dismissed the starchild case is bollocks. The science adaption of "Spiegel" had a large report on this case and didn't draw the ultimate and absolute conclusions like you did. Which I don't do either. I don't claim its extraterrestrial. No one here besides pye does that. But even the Spiegel report remained unconclusive and and a bit mystified. So stop swearing on my profile and attacking my persona.
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Spiegel has never received research findings about this. Commentaries are not research publications. there is a difference.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Can you please provide the citation in Nature (Spiegel) for this article that you are referring to?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 By the way, I never swore on your profile as you have accused me of. That happened to be someone else who had an issue with your comments. Again, evidence is a handy thing to have.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
I'm german, so english is not my native language. Therefore, I rest my case. Cheap shot anyway. "Your limitations belong not to me." I can tell by that comment what kind of an pseudo-sophisticated fucktard you are.
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 If you don't speak English as a first language, don't try to look like a smart guy using it.
Here is a fact: You do not have any education in science at a university level, and therefore, you are amking an idiot out of yourself for discussing the topic by simply copying and pasting the BS that you found on Pye's website.
There has NEVER been evidence presented in a manner that is consistent with science, that demonstrates that this skull is non-human. NEVER.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn
Well,I study sociology and economics,not genetics,so therefore I might not have the insight into this subject like you have.I assume by the level of your arrogance,that you yourself study genetics?And I repeat myself,I heard about that skull at university and didn't know the name pye before I came across this video.I'm just interested in this topic, which is legit thing to do. And it just came to my attention because of the possible haplogroup-paradox, which you didn't expand on.
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 So you don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you? When you get the education in science, then comment. Try to avoid swearing so that you don't look like a goof.
There is no evidence that has ever been demonstrated to support this BS. This is nonsense and not a single scientist has ever agreed with this.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 When you use terms such as "haplogroup-paradox", and do so in such a way as to imply something anomolous, then you must possess the education by which you can understand explanations.
Take a genetics course and ask your prof.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Think about what you just said to me. You call it a "cheap shot" that I point out your use of English when you swear at me. But what is more important than your use of English, is your understanding of science. How can you talk about genetics and come to conslusions about this skull without the education? You know nothing about science! Not a single expert has ever come forward and agreed with Pye. Not a single word has ever been published in a scientific journal, EVER. Dope!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
a descendant of the haplogroup - M- indigenious phylogenetics. The mitochondrial DNA derives directly from the mother, and by that I mean the woman who carried the foetus. The extracted X-Chromosoms in 2004 but showed patterns of haplogroup -A-, that means, that the female contributor of the human sex chromosome might, I say MIGHT, have been another individual than the donator of the of the mitochondrial haplogroup. That could implicate a foreign fecundation.
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Tell me the part about why you have copied and pasted directly from Pye's webiste all this drivel and yet you don't know what you are talking about....Why is that?
Why haven't you simply dealt with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that this skull is in any way non-human? Why is there not a single scientist on Planet Earth who agrees with your (Pye's) conclusion that this skull is anything but human?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
because you lack some education. I don't care about Pye, he is probably a poor old bastard, but the "retarded baby skull" theory is idiotic if you look a little into this subject. So, I rest my case. Go fuck yourselves if your ignorance and arrogance makes you dismiss blindly.
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 No one has described the skull as being "retarded", as it is not possible to infer intelligence directly from this skull. What has been provided, by any expert who has ever commented, is the assertion that the skull was of a child, who died at the age of about 5yo, who had a rare form of cranial deformity.
There is no evidence of anything more than that. Sorry pal, but people pursue an education to avoid your pathway of blind ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn
It seems that you're really a bit drunk with your profanity of dismissal. You didn't elaborate on any of my raised questions, since I didn't come this skull across by pye but by our decan.
You are, and I mean that in all kindness, missing one important point. Since you didn't come up with any specific points, kept on bitching and tried to evaluate your seemingly sophisticated point of view, I will give you nevertheless another try.
The child's mitochondrial pattern belonged to
Gonko100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gonko100 What does this sentence mean, "It seems that you're really a bit drunk with your profanity of dismissal"? It does not make sense.
You don't know what you are talking about. Just because you are limited in education, does not mean that everyone is likewise so stupid.
Sorry Einstein, but until you have the education, you will continue to sound like a retard.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 What language is this and what are you trying to express?..." You didn't elaborate on any of my raised questions, since I didn't come this skull across by pye but by our decan."
What is your question and why can't you get the education to answer it like everyone else who has gone to university? Your limitations don't belong to me.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 Now you have used another sentence, or phrase, "The child's mitochondrial pattern belonged to".
What is the evidence that this child's DNA was anything at all? What do you know about genetics anyway? You are speaking like an uneducated retard. go to university and get the education like everyone else who does and can then call themselves KNOWLEDGEABLE.
Tell me the part about you knowing what you are talking about.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
DNA extracted, although short strings, have strictly unusual patterns for humanoids. At this point its argueable, that the extraction of the father DNA hasn't been fully successful, and it's to soon to make and ultimate statement, although the fact that diameter of der skull's boneplates is 50% thicker than the human one. I told everyone to go fuck themselves because there has been no dismissal of the skull and every self appointed sceptic agent of ratio acts like questioning this phenomena is
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 You are repeating the same mumbo-jumbo that you have read on Pye's website. When you use profanities, your credibility dissovles as it reveals you for an ignorant uneducated turd.
There has never been evidence presented that demonstrate that this skull is in any way of non-human origin.
Instead of showing how stupid and gullible you are, why not go to university and get a science degree? While you are there, ask your genetics prof to spend some remedial time with you?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There has never been evidence demonstrated to suggest that the skull is in any way, non-human. That is not science, but the wishful thinking of a guy trying to sell books to fools with no education.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
"... real true bone skull, but all the bone is half as thick. it weighs half as much, yet it's three times as hard ..."
So its made from bone, but not real normal bone ... Seriously, how stupid do you think people are. For what you say to be true, this skull would have to be made out of completely different material.
and if it was, it would be the most amazing archaeological find of the century and they certainly wouldn't let you handle it. Get a life Simone!
ASKaPHYSICIST 1 year ago
"... real tru bone skull, but all the bone is half as thick. it weighs half as much, yet incr
ASKaPHYSICIST 1 year ago
well, it could be some weird-ass kid...
SonNickOsUzumaki 1 year ago
look at the browline.. it doesnt resemble a humans brow line..
DinoVice 1 year ago
This is true......they are doing complicated DNA Tests on it even now.
TKRPAIN 1 year ago
WOW! You just made a believer even MORE of a believer! :D
shirorokemisuto 1 year ago
my sister's head is way more ugly...but nobody did a video of it!
hujo445 1 year ago
what a bull shit... you guys fucked up and couldn't come up with an answer..yes lets call it an alien hybrid that must be it...bunch of fucktards.
enow0049 1 year ago
come on man what are you saying aliens come here to fuck us.
generouspeasant 1 year ago
hey..
rememmber hydrocepalus baby??...
they have bigger head than you...
aid4all 1 year ago
this is what they ment by having skeletons in the closet, everyone has seen freaks in a sideshow and so was this guy. pretty nice he lived to be an adult but nothing short then the hunchback from notredam
WarbladeX1 1 year ago
Just another fucking lie............hahahhahaah
strangerlover11 1 year ago
@Illzenithill I don't see any molars here. I see no teeth at all. Is there an associated maxilla or mandible? Yes, nuclear DNA has been extracted from much older remains (e.g., Neandertals), but the conditions have to be just right and it is very difficult to do. If the no-nuclear-DNA criterion was applied to determine extraterrestrial status, then you'd end up calling 100s of human skeletons from archaeological sites "alien" simply because the nuclear DNA was too degraded to extract.
AnthroSkeptic 1 year ago
still can't believe no dna can be extracted from dinosour bones? is that because they are well fossilized?
we still lookin for that 60 million year old mosquito trapped inside tree sap or what!?
viceman1982 1 year ago
@kushroller. It was found in Mexico in the thirties I believe
shlongfaceboy 1 year ago
fake alien
glumetu1000 1 year ago
bullshit i dont believe ... dont believe in them 100% i believe that they exist somewhere in space that for sure but not on earth or near while i not see in my own eyes never wil believe or atleas some real avidence not Cgi or somekind shit
sad4ewer 1 year ago
rubber johnny
NeoZeromusX 1 year ago
his mother was drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco too much when she was pregnant ending up into congenital defects making the creatures skull like that
kieferkippy 1 year ago
This is a human child's skull that is probably pathological. Because it exists in much higher quantities in human cells (1000s per cell), mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from only mom) is relatively easy to extract from ancient bone, while nuclear DNA (1 copy per cell and inherited from both mom and dad) is very difficult and frequently impossible even in the best labs. Thus, it's not surprising that nuclear DNA could not be extracted.
AnthroSkeptic 1 year ago
@AnthroSkeptic its molars differ physiologically than ours and are fully developed which is why it has been concluded to be an adult. nuclear dna is more difficult to extract than mitochondrial, but its been done with remains thousands of years older than the starchild skull which is 900 yrs so recent technology easily allows 4 the extraction of nuclear dna from a well preserved 900 yr old skull. the fact that it couldnt be extracted is indicative of unidentifiable and thus unknown dna
lllzenithlll 1 year ago
@AnthroSkeptic its not a human childs skull because they found teeth that were fully formed and had long roots so they determined that it was a mature being
kingX777 1 year ago
umm its old and started to fossilize why it is hard
QuickflipPRO 1 year ago
Just one question that would leave doubt in my mind...where the hell did he get the skull from? Did he just walk in his backyard one mornin sippin his coffee and go- Oh theres an alien head lol no! Seriously tho where the fuck did he find that thing
kushroller1 1 year ago
this is real. hard to fake Dennis Gonzo ( ufo critic)
gonzalezdennis 1 year ago
I saw a skull like that in a museum in Lima,Peru-alot of the mummies had deformed skulls but that was custom by the natives to bind their heads (usually from a toddler to teenage years) Even the Flathead natives in North America used to bind their skulls. Imagine binding a hydrocephalitis baby...
MoaiVsHumanity 1 year ago
@MoaiVsHumanity nuclear dna, he said it right there
DJSIMPLYP 1 year ago
A retarded baby's skull? No, must be an alien.
MissyZilla 1 year ago 2
@MissyZilla I was thinkking it was a deformed person myself.
MrsDixon1234 1 year ago
@MissyZilla
Do you know enough about human anatomy or medicine to say that?
PRPWR 1 year ago
I call mutant baby.
tikifreakazoid 1 year ago
@456train456 once again you use an argument completely out of context and have set up a straw man argument. You really must read through Lloyds website to at least arm yourself with the correct ammunition. You should also look at “Starchild DNA results” that way you will know just a little bit more! Intervention is where off world beings carry out genetic modifications. Starchild DNA results video explain that the Starchild is completely alien with a human surrogate giving it mtDNA but no nDNA
wlfmi 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
MONKEY SKULL
XxBloodbath69xX 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@XxBloodbath69xX no it's not, it was tested and found to have human DNA.
A badly deformed human baby is more likely than Pye's claim of an alien father!
456train456 1 year ago
@456train456
jesus krist. how dumb can ppl be.
The mitochondrial dna was found to be human. the rest was NOT IDENTIFIED. i researched starchild a while. it is definitely NOT HUMAN. everyone telling you the opposite doesn't know enough about this subject and should keep his fukkkkking mouth shut.
Gonko100 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 How much do you know about forensic DNA analysis? Perhaps before telling everyone to f-off, you should get the edcuation? Simply because on one occasion, on a 900yo skull specimen, it was not possible to get a complete sample of DNA, does not all of a sudden make the skull, "definitely NOT HUMAN". Where does the logic work in that? Sorry pal, but that is why scientists and everyone else who actually gets to say that they are knowledgeable, go to UNIVERSITY and get the education.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn
Ok. First: The radio-carbon-method stated the age of the skull to at least 900 years. The position of the Canalis Opticus, mr. educated sceptic, has cranial adjustment, which cannot be provided by mutation. His frontal sinus is completely missing, and for the hydrocephalus-syndrom the symmetry is too precise. The Crouzon- and Apert- Syndroms have both been dismissed.
The mitochondrial DNA, which is only provided by the mother, was human. It is stated, the intact samples of father
Gonko100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Gonko100 I agree that I have also read the skull to be 900yo. Your comments regarding morphology are not derived from your own expertise, byt instead, you are repeating the same BS that comes from one source, Pye's website. A deformity does not constitute an origina that is non-human.
As for the DNA analysis, again, you are not commenting from a postion of knowledge, but of what you are repeating from the same source. Absence of intact DNA does not equal evidence of anything but absence.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
Gets you thinking, if it had non human dna, and it was twice as thick and strong but only half the weight. How come we havent heard about this in the news or it being a revolutionary discovery of any sort named in historybooks?
Because its a fucking fraud
Lillie1986 1 year ago
Holy shit thts scary (not really, just wierd)
aRandomKid22 1 year ago
And there you go 100% proof and people still question and denie a simple fact.....yes simple....go belive in invisable men in the sky.....you die and break down to minerals and have a guy hold your head 1000 years later
Poker190 1 year ago
retarded baby? (no joking 100%)
Valholm 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thats the monkey skull.
MrMythbuster1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrMythbuster1, it's not a monkey skull, it's DNA test showed it had a human mother......no test for the father's DNA could be done.
Lloyd thinks the pecularities of the skull must come from an Extra Terrestrial, I myself think that it is much more likely to be just a deformed baby.
Lots of deformed babies and some living humans can look non human at first glance......remember Tree man and his pals......if they suddenly turned up in someones house, they probably think aliens had landed!
456train456 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is the evidence to support this claim?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is the evidence to support this claim?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The alien looking skull is human. Google Cranial Binding. its from the Andean Paracas culture. also look up Head flattening.
myY0UTUBEchanneI 1 year ago
i see a ducumentary on discovery chanel ....the guy said in that documantary that he found it in a cave and acording to the local village a young grild (17-21 years) has born a very starnge child that has die after he born ahe nd shide it in the cave ..i dont know what to say maybe its just a grave malformation...
TheGrandTheftshit 1 year ago
its from one of those tribes that wrap wires around their kids heads and neck to reshape it...duh...lol
msray86 1 year ago
Just because it isn't human does not mean it is from beyond this earth.
100100911 1 year ago
Based on the structure of this skull i would say this individual was missing the Reptilian area of the brain. Meaning it probably evolved somewhere other than earth. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!
xrockthe40ozx 1 year ago
DROPS IT "SMASH" DOG WALKS PAST STEALS A CHUNK.
whereistheuniverse 1 year ago
that is one seriously deformed human.R.I.P
enrrique273 1 year ago
@enrrique273 Exactly, nothing alien about it.
Zoloft61 1 year ago
thats just a skull of a deformed baby
omeane 1 year ago
its called a freak of nature
BADprid3 1 year ago
I believe Aliens are observing us as we do with wild animals.
That's why they never interfere. Their technology and civilization is so much ahead of us that's there is no need for them to get into contact since they have nothing to learn from us. We are just a curiosity for them and a matter of study.
METALSKYDIVER 1 year ago
@maiterz So basically what we're dealing with here is a hybrid between a human female and an alien who couldn't get any? O__o
Randomonlinevids 1 year ago
@Randomonlinevids Lmao yup that sounds about right eh?!
Maiterz 1 year ago
It could just be a deformed baby skull that was slightly fossilized causing it to be mutated and abnormally hard. Maybe it was also malnurished, causing its skull to be thinner than normal. Also, if they didn't discover the nuclear DNA, that doesn't mean that they know for a fact that it is subhuman. I definately need more evidence and proof that this is a skull from a mixed human alien creature.
pooper4 1 year ago
This has ben in an out the media for some time - DNA testing have proved that this is a human skull - HUMAN SKULL!!!
It was a child suffering from somekind of deformaty... This have ben proving a million trillion times to be; Nothing!
Cmooon people - this is no mystery...
This huy in the video is warping the information to prove what he believes...
Daugaard36 1 year ago
why wasnt this reported on main stream news?
tatatatodd 1 year ago
man...bear....pig?
PkmnGamerX 1 year ago
i rekon the dinosaurs died becoz aliens knew about our independent learning abilities and how we were able to develope clothes and weapons but at that time dinosaurs would of been the only threat to us humans so aliens wiped them out so that we have room to evolve and advance with out haveing to worry about being killed by the dinosaurs..thats my theory becoz there is nothing on earth more violent then us now and i doubt that we could of survived all those dinos runing around with out help
weedysmyplant 1 year ago
@weedysmyplant I pretty much agree to your teory cuz some people say that humans were once friends with aliens but its all theorys and unprooved stuff but there is one thing which is the key to it all Area 51
Darkshadow5556 1 year ago
cool
frenchinator7 1 year ago
Its a craniofacial deformity, most likely a form of brachycephaly. Go and educate yourselves and read some medical textbooks.
proteoid 1 year ago
Bullshit, my cousin's head looks just like that. And hes 8.
Boss5414 1 year ago
this is problably proof of the nephilim, the bible says that "the sons of god" meaning angles came to earth and had children with the women.
cwl82 1 year ago
@cwl82 I agree with you but werent nephillim supposed to be giants?
BritneyAddicted4EVA 1 year ago
@BritneyAddicted4EVA I'm not sure if they were all giants....the bible says "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." It doesn't say that they were giants but that giants exsisted with them. I also think these nephilim are where we get the stories of the 'gods' (hurculies, zeus etc)
cwl82 1 year ago
@cwl82 Tell me, PLEASE, which book, chapter, and verse?
Randomonlinevids 1 year ago
@Randomonlinevids Genesis 6:4
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
To get it in in context read Genesis 6:3-5
cwl82 1 year ago
@cwl82 Thank you, especially for making a point to read it in context. I don't know how I have never seen that verse. However that bit (6:1-5) seems rather out of place there, like it's unrelated with previous or following verses. Do you think so?
Randomonlinevids 1 year ago
Great video man, if you want to see a movie that will blow your mind type into Youtube old world secrets the omega project codes
cayc1 1 year ago
this my friend is a very early evolution of the human so this guy is talking bullshit
Darkshadow5556 1 year ago