Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

and another..

Those are Human Skulls, I remember this from some tribe in like Africa or something, or it might have been our Ancient Monkey-Like ancestors

That makes me laugh really hard.

The second one is a baby skull of some sort, but not anywhere near as large as what the comparison picture shows.

the second skull is the famous "star child" skull. There is nothing about it to set it apart from any other skull.......other than it's deformity. There are no actual differences in the bones.....

the first is just a regular ol' skull. a dime a dozen in Africa. Binding was a common practice in many African tribes. They wrap the head tight at birth while the bones are soft......molding it into that shape. just do a google image search on african binding and you'll turn up countless pictures of living people who have binded their head to that shape.

iVe seen these skulls on the dIscovery channel

I found these pictures years ago on some Aliens website, just found em again any wanted some views. Thanks

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I found these pictures years ago on some Aliens website, just found em again any wanted some views. Thanks

How do you feel now knowing that the website you got these from was wrong and that they are not in fact alien skulls?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
How do you feel now knowing that the website you got these from was wrong and that they are not in fact alien skulls?

how do you feel knowing that he hasnt answered your question

Originally posted by KharmaDog
How do you feel now knowing that the website you got these from was wrong and that they are not in fact alien skulls?

Maybe its not wrong, and they are Alien skulls
How does it feel to be a peanut in a turd

I don't agree with the arguementative nature of some of the replies.........the guy just posted the pics and asked for thoughts on them. It's not like he posted, "OMG DOODZ CHEK OUT DEEZ ALIEN SKULLZ!!!!!11!!!!"

that said, what reason would there to declare these skulls as "alien"? That would just be a wild assertion from an over active imagination. There is nothing relating these skulls to the morphology of any known alien being.......as there aren't any known. They are, however, the exact morphology of a human skull. While not knowable from a 2-D picture, I have watched a few documentaries which have covered both the star child skull and binding skull. The bone structure is exactly that of any human skull.......all the same bones in the same places. The only difference is in the deformed shape of the skull. The binding skull is quite easy to explain as some african tribes have been doing this for as long as their known history. They are humans that purposely deform their skulls......as other tribes stretch their necks while still others engage is ritual tattoing and body mutilation. The cause of the "star child"' skull's deformity is unknown........meaning we don't know exactly why the skull is deformed, a genetic trait or purposefully done. All we know about it is that it is a deformed human skull.

to find a skull....of perfect human morphology....with a disfigurement and jump to a wild assertion like it is that of a being unknown to science is a complete lack of logic. By this standard, any human with a deformity could be an alien..........the "elephant man"....dwarves....etc.

I don't believe the originator of this thread was familiar with the subject.....much less these two particular skulls in general (or he wouldn't have posted about it). No need to be mean....he just posed a topic and asked us to discuss. Everybody is ignorant to any given information until they learn it.

to the originator of this thread........watch all the TLC, Discovery, National Geographic and Discovery Science channels you can. You will find documentaries on just about every subject you can imagine......where they pose the same questions as you, then proceed to answer it via research and testing. If you have those 4 channels on your cable programming.......you can literally spend 24 hours a day watching documentaries on such subjects if you wish.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Maybe its not wrong, and they are Alien skulls
How does it feel to be a peanut in a turd

I asked an actual question. Your response however was a reply worthy of the thought process that went into assuming that those skulls were human.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
the second skull is the famous "star child" skull. There is nothing about it to set it apart from any other skull.......other than it's deformity. There are no actual differences in the bones.....

the first is just a regular ol' skull. a dime a dozen in Africa. Binding was a common practice in many African tribes. They wrap the head tight at birth while the bones are soft......molding it into that shape. just do a google image search on african binding and you'll turn up countless pictures of living people who have binded their head to that shape. There's no difference in the bones? Look at the structure. It's wide compound makes it unparalleled to a regular shaped skull.

correct. there are no differences. The exact same bones exist within that skull as any regular ol' human skull. No more, no less. The exact same bones are in the exact same proximity as in any regular ol' human skull. The only difference is in the shape of the cranial bones on the side. They are no more dense or massive than any regular ol' human skull. All that is different is the actual shape of cranial bones. The bones are either mis-shapen from a genetic deformity or from a binding process which began at birth, encouraging the growth of the soft cranial bones to that shape as they grew and hardened.

because it looks different than most people you yell, "alien!!!!". Guess what, by your defenition there are still hundreds of aliens running around African tribes to this day, as they have binded their skull into a different shape. There are thousands of little aliens because dwarves have a genetic deformity.......resulting in their limbs growing to lengths well beneath the normal specs for humans.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
correct. there are no differences. The exact same bones exist within that skull as any regular ol' human skull. No more, no less. The exact same bones are in the exact same proximity as in any regular ol' human skull. The only difference is in the shape of the cranial bones on the side. They are no more dense or massive than any regular ol' human skull. All that is different is the actual shape of cranial bones. The bones are either mis-shapen from a genetic deformity or from a binding process which began at birth, encouraging the growth of the soft cranial bones to that shape as they grew and hardened.

because it looks different than most people you yell, "alien!!!!". Guess what, by your defenition there are still hundreds of aliens running around African tribes to this day, as they have binded their skull into a different shape. There are thousands of little aliens because dwarves have a genetic deformity.......resulting in their limbs growing to lengths well beneath the normal specs for humans.

You're missing the entire point. Sure, none of the bones are different or have been changed, but there is a difference; The skull is much bigger than the average human skull.

That's quite a difference, so what are you ranting about? It's as if you're disagreeing for the sake of debate. Either that or you just don't know the definition of "difference".

They are all the same bones right where they need to be, it'd be like you being taller than everyone, your bone structure is bigger, does that make you an Alien?

Who said it made that person an Alien? It sure as hell wasn't mean. I said there was a difference between the wide skull and a regular skull. Saying there isn't is direct logical fallacy, honestly.

"Alien Skulls" the topic, the Skull is either a Deformation, or a Binding Technique as stated by Evil Dead

incorrect. I stated there were no differences between the "star child" skull and a human skull. you disagreed,......meaning there is a difference between that skull and a human skull. As human skulls come in all different shapes, sizes and levels of deformity.......you were completely, utterly wrong. The only thing that could categorize this skull as being different would be the number or placement of bones, which happen to be no different than a human skull. Again, you were completely, utterly wrong.

you used the word fallacy incorrectly..........do you actually know the definition or did you see myself or another poster using it and thought it looked cool?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
and another..

Pumkins, they're scary.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
incorrect. I stated there were no differences between the "star child" skull and a human skull. you disagreed,......meaning there is a difference between that skull and a human skull. As human skulls come in all different shapes, sizes and levels of deformity.......you were completely, utterly wrong. The only thing that could categorize this skull as being different would be the number or placement of bones, which happen to be no different than a human skull. Again, you were completely, utterly wrong.

you used the word fallacy incorrectly..........do you actually know the definition or did you see myself or another poster using it and thought it looked cool?

First, let me get to this: I used fallacy incorrectly?
"Logical Fallacy" was something you had performed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

^ Didn't use it incorrectly. Earlier, you said the person who made this thread didn't know what he was talking about. You're a hypocrite. Still think you look cool? Oh, and . . . Mr. Completely, utterly wrong, Obviously, you have a heavy problem misunderstanding or you just threw assumptions around. I disagreed with PART of what you said; I did not disagree with the primary subject of the topic. Didn't I make that obvious enough? Or you have troubles reading?

Originally posted by Evil Dead

There are no actual differences in the bones.....

Cha Ching! There's the moneymaker right there!
That is what I disagreed with. Seeing as the back of the head of the skull bone is at least two times wider than an actual human skull, there's a direct difference. This means what you said was COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY WRONG. You made assumptions and rendered yourself a flaming hypocrite at the same time. Congratulations!

well, at least his question got answered

Originally posted by Evil Dead

really? what are the parameters of the human skull then, may I ask? What are the precise measurements.........because I would be more than happy to link you to pictures of human beings with all different sizes and shapes of skull. So Charles Barkley isn't human because his skull is wider than mine? People with downsyndrome are not humans? A 2 second google search of the terms "skull deformity" or "facial deformity" will render your arguement completely moot........as it's based on no facts, not even logical conjecture. Your argument seems to be that any skull that differs from the size/shape of your own is not a human skull instead of realizing that there are no defined shapes or sizes for human skulls..........meaning the only way a skull could be categorized as "different from a human skull" would be in the actual anatomical construction (number of bones present or proximal positioning of bones relative to one another).

Did you hear that?


That is the sound of Evil Dead knocking one right out of the park.

Okay, you commited Logical Fallacy due to the fact that you stated there was no difference in the bones when there was a direct difference in the size of the back of the skull. Because you were incorrect and you continue to attempt to debate about it, this rings in logical fallacy.

erroneous

Being in error will cause Logical Fallacy. Immediately. When you argue upon something that is incorrect with no exclusive evidence or any evidence whatsoever, it's Logical fallacy because when you become or are incorrect, your statement is fallible.




Yet you fail to prove your point again. Not only that, you're wrong. Again.

Check this out:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Gray_190_-_The_skull_from_the_front.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Gray_188_-_Side_view_of_the_skull.png

^ Average skull sizes that will not render the skull a differential from regular human anatomy.

Let us see here. Debating about the Star Child skull, correct?

Let's compare:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/skull_sc2.jpg

^ There it is. Notice anything awkward? Well, the Starchild skull has a different structure.

Considering the Starchild was believed to be an Alien, doesn't this make it different? Or is it still the same as a human skull?

Here it comes. As simple as it gets:

The wideness of the Skull exceeds the average regular human skull and renders it different compared to a human skull. Not only that, it completely breaks Frankfurts Plane law and defies the Human Skull completely and utterly. You were wrong in saying the Starchild skull and the Human skull had no differences. Period.



^ Cha ching! Lookie here! You saying there was no differences in the bones. The wideness from a regular skull would have rendered it completely different in the first place. The skull was rendered inhuman because of it's wide and different complexion from a Human skull.

Try again, Evil Dead.

So, I'm guessing the skull isn't an average human's skull.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, I'm guessing the skull isn't an average human's skull.

No, it isn't. It's abormally different from a Human Skull. Period.

Originally posted by Epsilon Zero
First, let me get to this: I used fallacy incorrectly?
"Logical Fallacy" was something you had performed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

^ Didn't use it incorrectly. Earlier, you said the person who made this thread didn't know what he was talking about. You're a hypocrite. Still think you look cool? Oh, and . . . Mr. Completely, utterly wrong, Obviously, you have a heavy problem misunderstanding or you just threw assumptions around. I disagreed with PART of what you said; I did not disagree with the primary subject of the topic. Didn't I make that obvious enough? Or you have troubles reading?



Cha Ching! There's the moneymaker right there!
That is what I disagreed with. Seeing as the back of the head of the skull bone is at least two times wider than an actual human skull, there's a direct difference. This means what you said was COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY WRONG. You made assumptions and rendered yourself a flaming hypocrite at the same time. Congratulations!

You're pathetic Sorgo.

retarded.

nobody's debating if the "star child" skull is an average human skull as clearly it is not. The point of contention is that you believe that human skulls have set parameters, which they do not. You believe that any skull that does not fit your made up/pulled out of your ass parameters are not human. A person could be born with a bone deformity causing their cranial bones to be 12 inches in width from left side to right side.......that does not make them any less human. A person could be born with a bone deformity (or binding, the common practice that results in this deformity) with a skull that is cone chaped......18 inches in length from top of the head to lower jaw, that does not make them any less human.

the only thing that could render a skull not human would be the number of bones present or their proximity to one another........those are the only constants present in all human skulls. Size nor shape have anything to do with anything..........

you posted a picture of skulls side by side. I see no bones missing (besides the obvious lower jaw)........I see no extra bones. All I see is a wider cranial structure........consisting of the very same cranial bones that every human walking the earth has, no extras.

next you're going to try and tell me that Joseph Merrick wasn't a human because his skull looked like this.....

http://www.doctorsecrets.com/amazing-medical-facts/elephant-man/elephant-man-front-skull.jpg

OMG LOOK!!!!!! THE LEFT SIDE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE A HUMAN SKULL........HE WUZ AN ALIE3NZ!!!!!

seriously kid.......If you hadn't already realized your assertions were wrong before and haven't just been arguing for the sake of arguing, the actual picture of a human skull that disputes your assertions must make it clear now..........but I'll look forward to more trolling. You typing the same wrong assertion over and over simply for the sake of arguing, even though it has even been disproven with visible facts in this very post.

keep 'em coming........

ps. you could save some time typing if you just use the quote feature on your second post..............it's the same thing anyway.

Like Evil Dead said, just a skull deformity.

Stranger things have happened. Sometimes, a sheep with 2 heads is born, or a lizard with 5 feet. Are those aliens too ?

I hate to admit it.......but that is totally true. They are doing science an injustice and defaming it.

Science is the study of our world. The methodology of science dictates that we observe occurances and record them. We then use that data to attempt to come to a universal understanding of any particular subject. This is why science is always changing. The more knowledge we gain.....the more fine-tuned our understanding becomes. Some of these people dismiss things off hand because it does not fall into their current understanding. The exact opposite of their job.

I was watching an episode of "Is it Real?" on National Geographic channel yesterday. It was about Lake/Sea monsters. While most are laughable (the very way they were treating the subject)....they were lumping all supposed creatures together. They were lumping a supposed sea serpent (snake with flippers) which actually had a complete carcass photographed in the 30s with the laughable subject of lake monsters (no way a land locked lake could have a breeding population of unknown animal without being known). They didn't even give mention to the Giant Squid which was a supposed sea monster....a cryptid.....which actually turned out to be true.

sucks that you don't have Discovery Channel. Pretty much, all I watch is Discovery, TLC, National Geographic and Discovery Science channels. I just go through and find documentaries on subjects that interest me ( a lot of them) and DVR them to watch at my discretion.

a female with 3 titties

I do watch other documentarys from other channels (Im in Germany) some which appear to be taken from BBC or Discovery channels.

One made me laugh, where they showed or tried to predict how certain creatures would evolve in the future. Theres was a Squid swinging through a jungle like tarzan, cool Graphics but pathetic.