PookztA said:

One or a few mutations would not explain the bone having a different composition, so that it is thinner, yet stronger, having a structure much more like Enamel of teeth, than bone as we know it. This is very abnormal, and there are no such mutations ever in recorded history to have caused this enamel-like property in anyone's bones, EVER in all of recorded history.

---

JT said:

watch your back brah

---

hehe

ChuangTzu said:

By the way, where is any evidence that the bone is stronger than normal bone, lighter than normal bone, has unknown fibers embedded in it, etc.?  Somebody said that, but who?  How do they know?  How did they measure these things?  Where are photos of the hairs, etc.?  For all we know, that has all been entirely made up.

---

ChuangTzu said:

What about the fibers, density, strength, etc.?

---

ChuangTzu said:

You have yet to present even a shred of evidence that the bone is not of normal mammalian bone composition.

---

PookztA said:

Please do not repeat hearsay information or Wikipedia information. 

---

hahahaa, of ALL people around here to say something like that! LOL

ChuangTzu said:

You have yet to present even a shred of evidence that the bone is not of normal mammalian bone composition.

---

ChuangTzu,

You must be extremely lazy, and this is why I ignored your posts. I am not here to prove anything to anyone, including you. I am here to share information I found interesting, and to defend any inaccurate claims made about this topic or any accusations or implications that I am gullible and/or being "fooled" by this. Evidence is what I use to draw my conclusions, evidence which I have personally taken the time to search for and read up on, while looking more into topics like this one.

If you want information, go find it, because I am not some library that will go retrieve information for you whenever you request it or demand it. You are an intelligent person just like me, that is capable of reading up on and looking into any topic he wishes. If you care about this topic, then look into it, but do not put the pressure on me to convince you and post evidence for you just because you are unwilling to go find it yourself (and it is very easy to find).

I could careless what you believe in regards to this skull, but I strongly encourage you to find evidence-based answers to your questions, and to take all evidence into account before formulating your beliefs.

This is a one time thing:

Fibers inside the bone: http://starchildproject.com/fibers.htm







Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull by Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S (c): http://starchildproject.com/reports_11Experts.htm

Specialists who examined the skull and associated X-rays and CAT scans were:

      Dr. Fred Smith, Head of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, New Orleans, La.

      Dr. David Hodges, Radiologist, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, B.C.

      Dr. John Bachynsky, Radiologist, New Westminster, B.C.

      Dr. Ken Poskitt, Pediatric Neuroradiologist, Vancouver Children’s Hospital

      Dr. Ian Jackson, (formerly of Mayo Clinic), Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Michigan

      Dr. John McNicoll, Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Seattle

      Dr. Mike Kaburda, Oral Surgeon, New Westminster, B.C.

      Dr. Tony Townsend, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

      Dr. Hugh Parsons, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

      Dr David Sweet, Forensic Odontologist, Vancouver


Basic Facts about the Skull: http://starchildproject.com/skull_overview.htm



>  The skull's bone is about half as thick as normal human bone.

>  The bone weighs about half as much as normal human bone.

>  The bone is substantially stronger than any known bone on planet Earth, with a mineral profile more like dental enamel than bone.

>  The bone was radio carbon dated in 2003 to be 900 years old (+/- 40 years).

>  The skull was reportedly found in an abandoned mine tunnel in the Copper Canyon region about 200 miles SW of Chihuahua, Mexico.

>  The skull is morphologically unique, and does not match the physical profile of any known human deformity.

>  The bone of the skull contains an as yet unidentified reddish residue that had never been seen before in bone (this is not desiccated bone marrow).

>  The bone of the skull contains microscopic fibers that have never been seen before in the bone of any animal.

>  Attempts to recover DNA from the skull easily produced its mitochondrial DNA, which proved its mother was fully human. However, no nuclear DNA could be recovered using human-only primers, which strongly indicates that the skull's father was something other than a typical human



Please make up your own mind about this skull, but please keep your mind OPEN until the full genome is sequenced. We should have the results in the next 1.5 years, so stay tuned. There is a mailing list you can sign up for if you really care, just go to: http://www.starchildproject.com/

Peace ,

-Abe

PookztA said:

Please make up your own mind about this skull, but please keep your mind OPEN until the full genome is sequenced.

---

ChuangTzu said:

PookztA said:

Please make up your own mind about this skull, but please keep your mind OPEN until the full genome is sequenced.

---

Yeah, I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat.

---

Annom said:

---

Annom, that baby has external occipital protuberances on the back of its skull (like all human skulls), which is where many of the posterior neck muscles attach.



vs.



Please show me a human skull that is missing its external occipital protuberances, AND that has all the anomalies of the Starchild Skull.

Good luck!

-Abe