Talk:Starchild skull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[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] 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)

Actually, the Star Child is a good example of so-called "experts" trying to fit squared pegs into round holes. Lloyd Pye has read up on all of the supposed deformities out there and pointed out that not only is there nothing like these deformities in recorded history, but if someone's skull was this deformed when it has to perform vital functions such as eating and breathing, they wouldn't make it past Day 1...especially over 900 years ago. The most plausible and realistic answer is that the DNA that this thing contains is indeed of another origin...at least in part. 192.249.47.11 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We know its mother is human, we know its father is human, and actual experts in their fields who don't have vested interest in the skull being valuable to boot and who aren't gullible have said what it is. It is a fully human skull; anyone who thinks that the DNA is not of human origin being plausible or reasonable has no idea what they're talking about. Read Occam's Razor. Seriously. We know what this skull is; we've figured it out scientifically. That's what scientific testing is for. Titanium Dragon 20:28, 4 October 2007 (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.

[edit] Study of DNA

The study of the DNA does NOT support the hypothesis that it is alien or alien-human; it in fact does the exact opposite, supporting the hypothesis that it is entirely human, as it has both X and Y chromosomes and belongs to haplotype C. The reason this has been suggested is the deformation (and wishful thinking), not genetic testing. Titanium Dragon 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It belongs to mtDNA haplogroup C, the Y-DNA haplogroup is unknown. Nagelfar 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I read that page. It doesn't support the allegation, and the actual RSs on the subject, the people who actually did the DNA testing, say that the skull is entirely human, has both the X and Y chromosomes, and even explained why "nothing was showing up". That page basically says "We suck at extracting and running DNA through gels" and/or "There isn't much DNA to extract and/or it is too broken up to run". Saying it supports it is comical, because it does the opposite. Titanium Dragon 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "It is difficult to prove that the Starchild (SC) IS alien, but there is already significant evidence that it is NOT entirely human. No expert, no scientist, and no doctor has ever been able to prove that the SC is 100% human." .... the beauty of NPOV (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched a program on the Starchild Skull; they suggested it was an alien because of the shape of the skull PRIOR to genetic studies, which contradicted that hypothesis. Titanium Dragon 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • lets add that in then? not sure, but if we do we gotta good a good citation on it using {{Cite episode}} unless we can find the TV episode in article form or something else? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the inquisitors have arrived. Well, at least it's reassuring that some things never change. =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.244.5.122 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a year late and a dollar short.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] two starchild skulls?

This site claims DNA was tested on the two starchild skulls, scanning the article I didn't see a mention of more than one. 207.202.227.125 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The other "starchild skull" was the normal human skull found with the starchild skull. Titanium Dragon 10:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)