How can we debunk this Starchild video?

[Mat]

There are some speculations but also some clearly stated facts/evidence. I am not interested in discussing the speculations or the character of Lloyd Pye - the skull's "custodian" - the quality of his method; just the claims in the video, please:

Here is the video:

[Belfrey]

The more unusual claims in there are (by the narrator's own admission) just speculation, or attributed to "experts" who are not named. What I haven't heard anywhere in the video is any explanation for why they ignore the possibility that this skull is the result of hydrocephaly, which leads to just these sorts of differences in morphology.





And they don't mention that DNA analysis has found the skull to be human, a male with normal human X and Y chromosomes (suggesting that both parents were also human).

[Mat]

Sure, but as said, what about the stated evidence just in the video. The fibres, the thin eye sockets...

[Belfrey]

Sure, but as said, what about the stated evidence just in the video. The fibres, the thin eye sockets...

Shallow eye sockets are sometimes associated with hydrocephaly, such as in Apert syndrome. Much of the video talks about how the skull is abnormal - it's clearly abnormal, but those abnormalities appear to be consistent with hydrocephaly.

Hard to say much about the "fibers" claims, that bit reminded me of the Carnicom stuff. They should be subjected to qualified analysis as to their composition (openly, not references to anonymous "experts").

[Mat]

Shallow eye sockets are sometimes associated with hydrocephaly, such as in Apert syndrome. Much of the video talks about how the skull is abnormal - it's clearly abnormal, but those abnormalities appear to be consistent with hydrocephaly.

Hard to say much about the "fibers" claims, that bit reminded me of the Carnicom stuff. They should be subjected to qualified analysis as to their composition (openly, not references to anonymous "experts").

So he makes the claims that they are unique in human cases. This should be easy to debunk if bunk.

[Belfrey]

So he makes the claims that they are unique in human cases. This should be easy to debunk if bunk.

The "Starchild Project" dismisses hydrocephalus as an explanation based on their own set of "experts", who say that it lacks "erosion of the inner table of the skull" and a widening of the sutures. It would be nice to have the skull examined by someone who specializes in such disorders.