[QUOTE=Ignhelper;30659252]Really informative. Thanks OP.[/QUOTE]
Oh thank yo....!
oh, is that sarcasm? :(
[QUOTE=falcont2t;30659340]Oh thank yo....!
oh, is that sarcasm? :([/QUOTE]
Nope. And welcome to facepunch!
After watching the video and reading the wiki page it could be this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_hydrocephalus[/url]
[QUOTE=wootmonster;30659488]After watching the video and reading the wiki page it could be this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_hydrocephalus[/url][/QUOTE]
doesnt explain the dna differences
[QUOTE=falcont2t;30659517]doesnt explain the dna differences[/QUOTE]
According to the wiki page, it was human
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull#DNA_testing[/url]
[QUOTE=wootmonster;30659549]According to the wiki page, it was human
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull#DNA_testing[/url][/QUOTE]
those are the 1999 and 2003 test.
there is one of this year or 2010, idr, but it said the skull had non human dna patrons
Science is right to reject it, one skull doesn't really prove anything. Interesting stuff though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.