First of all thank you for providing this wonderful Forum to discuss matters such as this seriously and scientifically.
My background as a surgical nurse in a large O.R. for more than 30 years and my studies getting a B.S. in biology before that, I think, tell me that the Starchild skull is alien. It is both ancient and alien. The bone skull itself has over 25 major anatomical variances from human skulls, with no signs of disease or deformity having caused this. It fits inside the head of commonly described gray alien life-forms. No creature on Earth has fibers in its microscopic bone structure, or Al metal in its chemical composition. The SEM chem analysis of its bone resembles tooth enamel, and is as hard to cut. No human deformity or condition causes this. The Wiki write-up is untruthful, lies. This is not a hydrocephalic skull, not progeria. If a person who had the defects proposed by its detractors were born in Mexico of 900 years ago, that baby would never make it to teething, let alone childhood. No hydrocephalic child's skull would have an inward crease sagitally, or anywhere else on the skull, because the pressure would spread all the bony sutures apart and the SC sutures are all closed. It's a solid, one-piece skull. A hydrocephalic skull would be fragile and fall apart at the sutures.
I can't discuss all the features that scream ALIEN in a single post, but this is a start. This is for you, Graham, for your comment or not and I'm not going to address doubters on the board here with a back-and-forth, like so many times in the past. My views on this are based on the same biological sciences that everybody gets in college and common sense.
Sincerely, Richard Dullum