Star Child Scull

Alien hybrid? Here is a series of vids that might interest you. Supposedly the mother was human and the father was not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxuUmgt_SE&feature=PlayList&p=B3AA762B67B324DD&index=0&playnext=1

links please honey?

Oops, sorry about that. LOL
Went back and added the link. Thanks hun!

Listening to this now. I read a very interesting book by Lloyd Pye a while back called
"Everything You Know is Wrong" THX for posting this.

@ Seekx ,it is a Radio show.


THX again for the post. The program was truly OUTSTANDING !
I just ordered the book.

Wolf wrote:

@ Seekx ,it is a Radio show.


THX again for the post. The program was truly OUTSTANDING !
I just ordered the book.

Was that " @" one eyeball rolling up at me , I usually get 2 " @@ ".

LOL! So glad you both enjoyed this! Welcome back SeekX!

I found a link to the Book and other information somehow I saved this link...

http://www.starchildproject.com/

Thanks Gary. I wanted to post that link and forgot to. Intriguing.

I remember hearing about this guy on a documentary about ancient astronauts once. He regretted ever naming the skull "Star Child" because when he called any serious professors to do a proper history dating of the skull, and called it "Star Child" they usually hung up on him.

But beside the name it's damned interesting. I still lean towards it being a misshaped baby head, but you know, you can never be too sure...

"In general, the skull has the basic components of a human skull: i.e., a frontal bone, two sphenoids, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, these bones have been markedly reconfigured from the "normal" shapes and positions such bones usually have. In addition, the bone itself has been reconstituted to an equally marked degree, being somewhat less than half as thick as normal human bone, with a corresponding weight of roughly half normal. The reconfigurations and the reconstitution are uniform throughout all axes and in all planes of the skull. There is no asymmetrical warping or irregular thinning that is the hallmark of typical human deformity."


"The morphology of this skull 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 cranium. Because of its uniqueness, I undertook an extensive review of current literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example. In short, it seems to be not only unique in my personal experience, but also unique throughout the past history of worldwide study of craniofacial abnormalities. This is significant."

The above was taken from here: http://www.starchildproject.com/reports_11Experts.htm

The Virus wrote:

He regretted ever naming the skull "Star Child" because when he called any serious professors to do a proper history dating of the skull, and called it "Star Child" they usually hung up on him.

That only goes to show how closed minded and set in their ways of thinking those "serious
professionals " are . Scientists who refuse to even consider thinking outside the box of accepted norms are never going to farther scientific thinking.
Instead they hinder scientific advance, just as the church did so many years ago.

Yeah. But I think the problem this time was just as much the name itself, as it, to be frank, sounds like some hippie/new age propaganda stuff (note; I'm not saying that it's not true, just calling it as it sounds). The fact is, he could have picked a better name for it, something more neutral like, "Lucy" for example.

I mean, if this is true, then it's a revolutionary discovery that will change history as we know it.

And if that's the case, then it'd be pointless to let that discovery fall into oblivion just because of a poor choice of name.

The Virus wrote:

I mean, if this is true, then it's a revolutionary discovery that will change history as we know it.

And if that's the case, then it'd be pointless to let that discovery fall into oblivion just because of a poor choice of name.

If a major discovery is dismissed by the established circle of "professionals " because of a name
than that speaks volumes for the lack of professionalism by the so called "professionals".
Facts are dismissed on a regular basis in the elite scientific community, due to politics
and that my friend is the fault of the system and not the researchers or any name they may give to their discovery.

Of course you're right. But my point is, that if we want to get the truth out, then we have to be prepared to make concessions on issues like this. If giving the skull the name "Lucy" is the price to be paid for it to be officially studied and recognized by the scientific community, then I'd say that's a small price for us to pay. Even if we're in the right, and they're a bunch of narrow-minded fools.

My point is that they are ignoring the facts of the case, due to the implications that the facts themselves present ,and not the "name" of the skull, therefore they would disregard the facts of the case and "debunk" it regardless of any other name given it. as well .
It is already well established ,that anything to do with possible ET life forms / UFOs are officially laughed at and scuffed at no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be ,

They also scoff at anything that is in direct opposition of any of their pet accepted theories that they tot around as fact. I see no reason that this case under a different name would be treated any differently.

The fundamental flaw in all of this is mankind's arrogant belief that he holds all the answers when in fact he barely has any of the questions correct.

It has been mathematically proven that space flight is impossible right ?
Just as it was mathematically proven that flight was reserved by God to the birds,
that no one could drive 35 miles an hour without the force ripping their faces off,
and that the earth is flat......


Open mindedness is the key. Arrogance is the problem.

Mankind knows almost nothing about space and therefor next to nothing about the possibilities of space travel. It was PROVEN over and over again that mankind would never fly .

I think your preconception on what is provable and what is just a BELIEF is very off base.
Just because you have not seen or experienced something does not make it unreal and impossible and anyone who disagrees w/ you "gullible". Those of us who have had real experiences with outer world crafts and beings
have plenty of proof for ourselves what is possible. I have no concern with whatever "proof"
the old boys science net work has that space travel is impossible, because I have seen first hand that it is very real.

Wolf wrote:

My point is that they are ignoring the facts of the case, due to the implications that the facts themselves present ,and not the "name" of the skull, therefore they would disregard the facts of the case and "debunk" it regardless of any other name given it. as well .
It is already well established ,that anything to do with possible ET life forms / UFOs are officially laughed at and scuffed at no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be ,

They also scoff at anything that is in direct opposition of any of their pet accepted theories that they tot around as fact. I see no reason that this case under a different name would be treated any differently.

When a scientist does come forth they usually lose their jobs over it. It shouldn't be that way. I agree with you Wolf.

Wolf wrote:

The fundamental flaw in all of this is mankind's arrogant belief that he holds all the answers when in fact he barely has any of the questions correct.

Open mindedness is the key. Arrogance is the problem.

Bravo Wolf. Couldn't agree more.

And the irony of science is in it's contradictions - even though it claims to have the answers. Maths is based on symbols and symbols are only accurate if all who use them understand their meaning and application. If we are relying on one school of information to be the authority on everything then we might as well be wearing a blindfold and trying to describe what sight is...

An interesting sideline to the comments on how the naming of an object might influence it's scientific treatment - remember the dodo? Funny name for a funny bird. Extinction - scary word for the dodo's reality. If ever there was a contradiction in terms that isn't easily forgotten because of the polar opposites of the two terms, it has to be this. Sometimes having a strange or funny name is a gift - it hammers home the point and embeds the memory in the human psyche. A true scientist does not refuse to investigate something because it has a dorky name or label with less-than-credible connotations : if they do, this is called a personal or attributional bias and goes against the premise of empirical research. Critical research relies on ruling out these sorts of factors and looking at all the data - not deciding the validity of the case on what the object under investigation is called. It is not science at fault here, but human perception. Critical thought, which is an underpinning of empirical research, requires an open-mind, not a closed one.