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.
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.
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.
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?