Talk:Starchild skull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents 1 "Recent DNA testing on the skull indicates a human origin." 2 New theory 3 starchild skull 4 Changes Needed? 5 Reliable Sources 6 Deletion

[edit] "Recent DNA testing on the skull indicates a human origin."

I think we either need a citation here, or the sentence removed entirely.

[edit] New theory

I am not saying this to disprove any current theories going around now,but a theory going around my head is that we Humans are not native to this planet. Flame me now--Poodleman 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] starchild skull

While the page does acknowledge that the extra-terrestrial theories of origin are unusual, it does not detail the more common explanation for the unique nature of the skull. This has a good overview of the more common explanation and the reason to object to more extreme interpretations.. Is there any particular reason for not including this information? --Davril2020 20:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone's tried including it. I'd encourage you to do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a critique of the idea. --Davril2020 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer:The morphology and radiology have been reviewed by medical specialists, and all agreed that they have never seen anything like it: commonly occurring deformities have been consideredc and ruked out - ANON comment

I moved your comment to the bottom of the page. If you read the links you will find the owners of the skull are selective about who they send it to (that is, they will not send it to someone who is not already enthusiastic about their suggestion). --Davril2020 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition I have reverted your changes. Your facts clearly contradict the documented evidence. If you have sources that meet WP:NOR please cite them. --Davril2020 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes Needed?

I've altered the article a bit to make clear the low level of support for a non-human origin. I've added a critical review of Starchild and removed the list of scientists (argument from authority). Anyone else feel it requires expansion? --Davril2020 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a picture of the skull we could put on here to demonstrate its unusual physiology? -J.U. Therguy Answer: Go to www.starchildproject.com; there are lots of photos on the site.

I've added a site on the page which supports the theory that the Starchild was not of alien origin, instead it had brachycephaly and exorbitism. Love bug 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

Are there any reliable sources on this item? I suspect BS. Jefffire 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you define as a reliable source? This is a very, very minor part of pseudoscientific debate, so it hasn't historically attracted much interest. If you look through the links there are some critical links available, but most people don't waste their time on it. --Davril2020 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean for statements such like the skull is substantialy stronger than human bone. Jefffire 12:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Basically this article look like a load of factually dubious unverified statements, speculation, and links to kook sites. I don't think there is anything here to be saved. Jefffire 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do save it. I heard a small bit about this on the radio and they said it was "unusual" but didnt say what was unusual about it. So I came to wikipedia to get more info. Though I dont believe it is the skull of an ET, at least now I know about the unusual size and the absence of nose. So in that regard at least the article was helpful to me.

The deletion attempt happened a while ago and the result was no consensus. The piece has improved a little since then so it will probably survive. --Davril2020 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DOH! I should have looked at the date on that before I posted. Nevermind.