Aliens HAVE visited earth - Finally... tangible evidence

Hello,
Something I found interesting on the wiki link; "There are no frontal sinuses.[4]"

Did I just zoom through the posts and not see this mentioned already? Is this a significant abnormality?

Definitely worth remaining open-minded. But I'm not going to pay some guy to dupe me, none the less. The Government does it well enough without any competition.

Did a biblio search; [4] as above. en.wikipedia.org...
I read about one paragraph. Blah

[edit on (3/19/1010 by loveguy]

Originally posted by loveguy
Hello,
Something I found interesting on the wiki link; "There are no frontal sinuses.[4]"

Did I just zoom through the posts and not see this mentioned already? Is this a significant abnormality?

Definitely worth remaining open-minded. But I'm not going to pay some guy to dupe me, none the less. The Government does it well enough without any competition.

Any time you have issues of development in bone, you are at risk for either a deformation or aplasia of related sinus structures. Specifically, aplasia of the frontal and ethmoid sinuses is a noted medical condition that, while not common, is not unique to this skull.

One very important factor to keep in mind is that the ethmoid and frontal sinuses are shaped, in part, by the sphenoid and ethmoid bones of the skull. If you look at the pictures of the skull, these two bones (which also contribute to the overall shape of the eye sockets) are very deformed. This would lead me to believe that aplasia of the frontal sinuses is a reasonable thing to expect.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Sigh... i've got an open mind, but if anyone actually believes this hopefully you'll deem it for entertainment purposes only...

All the various deformities and diseases on this planet, and one skull that looks odd HAS TO BE ALIEN...

This has got to be the most absurd story i've come across...

No matter what,
The skull itself is unusual in many respects and it is hard to get any straightforward answers, possibly because it is an inexact science and is only opined on by the people who have had contact with it, like this extract,

". Doctors Hodges and Poskitt found the brain inside the skull was abnormally large. This was determined by lining the intracranial cavity with a plastic bag that was then filled with Niger birdseed. This gave a size of 1600 cubic centimetres, which is 200 c.c. larger than the typical adult size of 1400 c.c. This is even more unusual because the size of the skull compares most favourably with a small adult or a child of about 12 years old. This extra brain capacity is apparently due to the deep shallowing of the eye sockets, a total lack of frontal sinuses (not even vestigial bumps are discernable), and significant bossing (expansion) of the upper rear of both parietals.

13. In any case, they observed, the extreme slant of the rear parietals and the occipital bone challenges whether this skull could have contained typical brain matter, and casts further doubt that its cerebellum was typical. In a normal skull, the cerebellum rests at the base of the cerebrum, supported by the internal occipital protuberance and the twin flares of the sagittal sulcus and the transverse sulcus. With this support mechanism, over the course of a lifetime the cerebrum’s weight does not press down onto the cerebellum and distend it such that it will cease to function properly. In this unique skull, however, the entire weight of the brain slants directly down on the area that should hold its cerebellum. Instead of the rounded area typically present for support, there is a wedge-shaped area of perhaps one-quarter of normal. Furthermore, the internal protuberance and sulcus ridges are significantly reduced. What effect would the weight of a notably amplified brain have on an unsupported cerebellum carried into adulthood? It presents a genuine conundrum.

14. Personally, I was most concerned with determining how the rear of the skull could have become so flattened, from the atypical fossa (depression) in the sagittal suture between the parietals, down to the foramen magnum opening. This could not have been caused by any kind of flattening or binding device because the surface of the occipital reveals the subtle convolutions inevitably present in unaltered skulls. Skulls that undergo any kind of shaping technique will always reveal such technique with a distortion of the bone surface. Lacking even a hint of evidence of shaping, and of any unnatural or premature fusing of any sutures, it is entirely safe to say that the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial. This too is significant. "

If you wanted to be arguementative, perhaps you could say that this is a child with two child-sized brains in one skull. Another thing is that some expert, maybe Dr Hodges also, commented on the lightness/thinness of the skull, while the actual bone composition was normal, maybe then you could also argue then that Starchild was born in a weightless environment. Just speculating in my ignorance.

reply to post by jziegler


oh my ...god.... wikipedia... wrong????

oh my god, how could that be?

isnt wikipedia the repository of all knowledge. let us bow now...

because if wikipedia says it aint so, then it aint so...

reply to post by Brainiac


programming is pretty good.

nuclear dna evidence is 'absurd'?

Originally posted by rapunzel222
reply to post by Brainiac

 

programming is pretty good.

nuclear dna evidence is 'absurd'?

There hasn't been any nuclear DNA eveidence presented yet, apart from an amateurish description of an incomplete test.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Telos
I don't understand why alien and ufo threads are becoming like that recently? From a conspiracy and ufo board, ATS is starting to look more like Skeptic Magazine.

Critical thinking is only unpopular with those who are incapable of it.
IRM

The line of the year!

All hail IRM

LOL! Thanks mate... and thanks to themuse too! It's nice to be appreciated!

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Do you think anybody else here is reading the info we've posted?

:shk: :shk: :shk:

I have been following your discussion very closely and to be honest, it's been the highlight of this thread!

IRM

[edit on 19/3/10 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If there was any evidence that we were created by 'other races,' it'd be a fair point to make. As there's no evidence that supports the idea of outside intervention...it's reasonable to attribute the skull to a rare human abnormality.

Brachycephaly?

Crainiosynotosis?

true, my personal beleif is that it is just a deformity in a young human, but like i said, it's totally logical to keep an open mind because the eldest of civilizations have always tried to record in some way human origins

take the egyptians for example, not only did they beleive this, but they had maps in hyroglyph form of all planets of the solar system, which only half are viewable to the naked eye, and they even had advanced knowledge of the stars and sky and claimed that certain 'gods' came from different places in the sky, each place they have given us is viable to contain chance for planets or a planet that can sustain life

the summerians clearly recorded in all of their tablets epics and stories and historical accounts of how humans were created

all the information is not just all over ats, it's gotten air time on history channel, discovery, books, eric von dyke, chariots of the gods, any zecharia sitchen book,

i don't know why you think there is no evidence, though i do agree at the time it's all up for speculation, there at least is enough on the table to satisfy the dreamer

Originally posted by rapunzel222
reply to post by jziegler

 

oh my ...god.... wikipedia... wrong????

oh my god, how could that be?

isnt wikipedia the repository of all knowledge. let us bow now...

because if wikipedia says it aint so, then it aint so...

The Wiki link is really inconclusive if you read down. That's probably why it is so short. The statement about proving that it's human, is a quote.

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Critical thinking is only unpopular with those who are incapable of it.

IRM

Well I didn't ask for your opinion and i could care less if you agree or disagree.

Nor could I care less if you asked for my opinion or not. That's not how the board works and your not the gatekeeper of opinions.

My concern was in general due to the fact that this board has been inundated with a lot of negative posting in the last months.

Your concern was clearly that there are too many skeptics at ATS, hence the 'Skeptic Magazine' comment. Here's my perspective whether you asked for it or not...

The board is inundated with more poppycock each day. We live in a virtual avalanche of unsubstantiated, fantasy prone, delusional BS here that only serves to mask the real phenomena.

Most of the negative and aggressive posting comes from the believer crowd. Go back and re-read this thread if you want to see where the personalized attacks (the truly negative posting) and general bitterness are coming from.

There are some very fragile people here who cannot stand alternative opinions to their own. I say to them - "Get Over It"! "Grow A Pair"!

So I'm sorry to stop your enthusiasm in shaping the "real truth" but you misunderstood my reply.

You do nothing to stop my enthusiasm. Check your ego and stop patting yourself on the back mate. I completely understood your post and your subsequent reply verifies that.

It just looks like you have a case of sour grapes!

IRM

[edit on 19/3/10 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Thanks!
I'm still neutral in believing that an ET race would leave evidence of an existence behind on Earth. Well, any anatomical evidence at least. And if the ETs did leave any evidence, I'm sure the military industrial complex will keep it out of mainstream acknowledgment.

Originally posted by indigothefish

all the information is not just all over ats, it's gotten air time on history channel, discovery, books, eric von dyke, chariots of the gods, any zecharia sitchen book,

i don't know why you think there is no evidence, though i do agree at the time it's all up for speculation, there at least is enough on the table to satisfy the dreamer

Quite simply, because Stichen and Von Daniken are Charlatans, and what they present is not evidence, but fairy tales to sell their books.

This is not a plethora of evidence, rather academics treat this alternate material with disdain as it is so full of holes, which is a shame, as there is research to be had in this area, and the only people doing seem to be those who are clever enough to make a buck out of it.

Originally posted by Brainiac
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

Sigh... i've got an open mind, but if anyone actually believes this hopefully you'll deem it for entertainment purposes only...

All the various deformities and diseases on this planet, and one skull that looks odd HAS TO BE ALIEN...

This has got to be the most absurd story i've come across...

Try reading additional info before posting.

This is FAR beyond just an 'deformity' or 'abnormality' - these ideas were dismissed long ago. I also saw some earlier posts about progeria, possibly - Folks, I appreciate some of the insights, rather than just poopooing this immediately like some of the other short-sided posts, but please... If you can think of it, it has been eliminated. This truly is new and breaking info. Stay tuned...

Originally posted by smurfy
14. Personally, I was most concerned with determining how the rear of the skull could have become so flattened, from the atypical fossa (depression) in the sagittal suture between the parietals, down to the foramen magnum opening. This could not have been caused by any kind of flattening or binding device because the surface of the occipital reveals the subtle convolutions inevitably present in unaltered skulls. Skulls that undergo any kind of shaping technique will always reveal such technique with a distortion of the bone surface. Lacking even a hint of evidence of shaping, and of any unnatural or premature fusing of any sutures, it is entirely safe to say that the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial. This too is significant. "

You seem to know what you are talking about in terms of this field. Please continue to give your input!

[edit on 19-3-2010 by bananasam]

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
This is FAR beyond just an 'deformity' or 'abnormality' - these ideas were dismissed long ago. I also saw some earlier posts about progeria, possibly - Folks, I appreciate some of the insights, rather than just poopooing this immediately like some of the other short-sided posts, but please... If you can think of it, it has been eliminated. This truly is new and breaking info. Stay tuned...

G'day SquirrelNutz

I don't agree the abnormalities have been "dismissed" or "eliminated".

Have you reviewed the info I've posted?

I believe it points strongly towards the cause of the abnormal development being Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome.

I don't see how this has been excluded.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
This is FAR beyond just an 'deformity' or 'abnormality' - these ideas were dismissed long ago. I also saw some earlier posts about progeria, possibly - Folks, I appreciate some of the insights, rather than just poopooing this immediately like some of the other short-sided posts, but please... If you can think of it, it has been eliminated.

So are you saying progeria has been eliminated? What about other deformities? You keep claiming deformities have been ruled out yet I've seen you post no evidence for this, despite my earlier request for such evidence.

Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence for this, or just some unsubstantiated claim someone posted on a website, which holds no valid weight in the scientific community? I can find some websites that make some pretty bizarre claims, but that doesn't mean they're true.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
[

Try reading additional info before posting.

This is FAR beyond just an 'deformity' or 'abnormality' - these ideas were dismissed long ago. I also saw some earlier posts about progeria, possibly - Folks, I appreciate some of the insights, rather than just poopooing this immediately like some of the other short-sided posts, but please... If you can think of it, it has been eliminated. This truly is new and breaking info. Stay tuned...

I've yet to find any information that has invalidated the theory of progeria or hyperplasia. Can you provide these sources, please?

Originally posted by bananasam

Originally posted by smurfy
14. Personally, I was most concerned with determining how the rear of the skull could have become so flattened, from the atypical fossa (depression) in the sagittal suture between the parietals, down to the foramen magnum opening. This could not have been caused by any kind of flattening or binding device because the surface of the occipital reveals the subtle convolutions inevitably present in unaltered skulls. Skulls that undergo any kind of shaping technique will always reveal such technique with a distortion of the bone surface. Lacking even a hint of evidence of shaping, and of any unnatural or premature fusing of any sutures, it is entirely safe to say that the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial. This too is significant. "

You seem to know what you are talking about in terms of this field. Please continue to give your input!

[edit on 19-3-2010 by bananasam]

Hi Banam,
That is part of a quote from Dr Hodges who had access to the skull for a period. No, I'm not medical, although I was a student nurse at one time and I remembered the occipital bone, for instance. But aside from the medical terms, what he has said was to give a general understanding for a layman as he is relating to a young person. All three paragraphs I quoted I found interesting, the size of the Cranial cavity, the apparant lack of space for the Cerebellum, (the doctor is puzzled by this) and the mention elsewhere of the lightness of the otherwise normal bone formation, (there is no mention of the strength of bone) it was looking at Dr Hodges comments that made me go back and look at the Wiki Starchild link, to see that where it says that it is proof of the Starchild being of human origin is in fact a quote from the testers who came from a specific source. The article itself does not give any proof, one way or another, and looks for more info.

OK, enough is enough!!!! Not only has VneZonyDostupa put more then enough information to show that the article/theory isn't even credible, but we have the OP(Squirrel Nutz), who hasn't even engaged in a debate with VneZonyDostupa. Why is Squirrel Nutz dodging the issue? If he feels so strongly about how much "evidence" there is about ET life, then please, do all of the believers, and your sorry thread a chance, and debate actual issues, instead of quoting people who say "yeah, ET's are real", and then saying how much you agree.

Squirrel Nutz, why can't you debate actual facts and issues with VneZonyDostupa? He has contributed more to this thread, and has given the most insight, then any member here, and yet, you keep dodging him. Why is that?



[edit on 19-3-2010 by TravisT]