It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Study: Top 5 Characteristics of Real Alien Cone Head Skulls

page: 2
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by KanuTruth
 


It's things like #5 that close the deal for me and the skeptics don't even want to mention certain details like how human head binding produces only two cranial plates or as with the s.c. skull the inter-cranial ridges show the brain was not even close to a human brain.
edit on 5-4-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
The so called star child has been proved to be human



DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[2]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother


If I remember correctly, the first two samples were considered corrupted as they were performed by students who screwed up.

The segments being returned by the newest run, something about a "shotgunning technique", are only partially matching the database of DNA segments.

You'd have to check the starchild website for more and proper information.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gspat
 




You'd have to check the starchild website for more and proper information.


I dont trust anything the starchild website has to say on the matter as they have a vested interest in trying to claim its alien.



If I remember correctly, the first two samples were considered corrupted as they were performed by students who screwed up.

Where is the proof for this?

My quote named the labs who did the real work on the DNA BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry) and Trace Genetics, what world class lab did the work on this alleged new test and can you provide a link to their report findings published by the lab itself that is not on the starchild website?

You see the 'star child project' website is just playing everyone. They make out like its been given some great new test that discounts all the other tests done up till then but they don't name the lab. Why is that? They are quick to try to put down the named lab of Trace Genetics that did the original research and found the DNA to be human but they don't name their lab. All they do is claim their new unreferenced work is better.

These are the tricks of con men and not people who really want to get to the real truth.

I also notice that they claim that their


genteacist is confident that complete confirmation will unfold over the following months as the Starchild Skull's entire genome is recovered using advanced sequencing technology. Ultimately, he will be able to formally announce that he has absolute, ironclad proof that a significant part of the Starchild's genome cannot be found on Earth.


and that was 4 years ago and that's the last we have heard from them on the subject....


edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Science in no way can begin to explain number five.
Neither can it attempt to explain the possible spiritual reality
as the bible records these events. A suffrage of it very own protocols.


edit on Rpm40514v342014u26 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Urantia1111
 




And so, to you, this somehow disproves the OP and debunks all possibility of aliens?


Nope, those are your words not mine..so you are arguing with your own self invented strawman argument.

Good luck with that lol.



edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


So just in passing you happen to comment about a totally unrelated skull story? The Starchild skull has not been associated with the Elongated skulls. You don't mean to imply by stating Starchild has been "proved" human (debatable at best) that the Elongated skulls have no merit? Ok, my bad then.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 




You don't mean to imply by stating Starchild has been "proved" human (debatable at best) that the Elongated skulls have no merit? Ok, my bad then.


I didn't 'infer' anything you were 'implying' that because i made a single sentence stating that the star child skull has been proved to be human with DNA tests that :


this somehow disproves the OP and debunks all possibility of aliens?


But that's ok your apology ia accepted, you are obviously confused.


edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Did anyone notice these inconsistencies?

First they tell us that aliens skulls have only two plates in the skull (although im sure i can see a very faint jagged slit down the back)


Here they say 2 holes is what proves an alien skull..but if you look it clearly has 3 skull plates which by their own theory means it must be human!


..and the first one with the 2 skull plates doesn't have the alleged tell tail 2 holes either.

Now here they are claiming that flat foreheads are a sign that the skulls must be human.


And then in the very next picture they present what they allege is an alien skull that has a flat forehead which by their own theory means it must be human!




Basically the Ancient aliens website is just looking for any anomaly and claiming that this is proof they 'MUST' be aliens. But none of these proofs are consistent across all of the alleged 'alien' skulls they are presenting.

We are all looking for good solid evidence of alien life guys but you have to keep an eye out for these con men selling snake oil. People have been conning the public with stuff like this for 100's of years now.




edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KanuTruth
 



Cranial deformation has been going on for thousands of years by many different cultures. That's a proven fact. Then you have people like Brien Foerster and David Childress (who coincidentally have a book out on this subject) that take these skulls and try to turn them into evidence of alien beings. They have the stereotypical alien look, so they must be aliens. Forget any real life scientific study like has been done by scientist for years with these cultures. They look like aliens, 'therefore aliens'? That's ridiculous.

Brien Foerster is not a genetist, yet speaks as one. He claimed to have this DNA tested, but wasn't forthcoming by whom. It was later revealed that it was Melba Ketchum, who is the same person that studied the "Starchild" skull. You know, the skull you mentioned that has been around for 15 years and is still teetering right on the edge of discovery that this is some type of alien/human cross breed. They only need more $$$money$$$. So please donate!
How many more years will you believers hang on to this starchild story? As PhoenixOD has shown, it isn't alien. You use their 15 year inconclusive results, as an actual result. I hope each and every one of you that support this claim are donating money to this million dollar testing. You should be if you believe.

Things like this need to be debunked and put away. Otherwise, you have impressionable and easily swayed believers with yet another subset to follow and spread around.


Urantia1111
And so, to you, this somehow disproves the OP and debunks all possibility of aliens? Nice strawman diversion, but you know darn well it doesn't. These elongated skulls lack very specific human morphological characteristcs. They're approaching the proof threshold that your career debunkers dread might one day come forth. Bummer, eh?


Yes, right on the cusp of discovery, like it has been throughout the last several decades? No definitive evidence of anything, only may-bes and could-bes. We should just blindly accept this low-level threshold of evidence as actual scientific evidence? I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Urantia1111
 




You don't mean to imply by stating Starchild has been "proved" human (debatable at best) that the Elongated skulls have no merit? Ok, my bad then.


I didn't 'infer' anything you were 'implying' that because i made a single sentence stating that the star child skull has been proved to be human with DNA tests that :


this somehow disproves the OP and debunks all possibility of aliens?


But that's ok your apology ia accepted, you are obviously confused.


edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


So if I'm confused about your mistakenly perceived inference, what's with the totally off-topic comment? How am I the confused party when you're the one apparently completely mistaking one skull for another? They don't even look anything alike.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I maybe naive, or a laymen in these topics.

But, I would suspect (again as a laymen) that an Alien skull, or one that was a "hybrid" would have two characteristics I am not seeing here.

1. DNA would be wildly different and hence direct structural differences, location, and shapes, that could be chalked up to something more than deformity, an eye for an example where it should not be, or a sensor organ that earth creatures had not developed..

2. Composition of material. I find it hard to believe that the same biological process that lead to the structure and composition of bone (meaning materials leached from nutrients to form) would be the same, or similar enough not to cause a direct "whoa thats alien"

OF course, I could come up with a convoluted story to explain these differences not being there, but that wouldn't be science.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 




Brien Foerster is not a genetist, yet speaks as one. He claimed to have this DNA tested, but wasn't forthcoming by whom. It was later revealed that it was Melba Ketchum, who is the same person that studied the "Starchild" skull. You know, the skull you mentioned that has been around for 15 years and is still teetering right on the edge of discovery that this is some type of alien/human cross breed. They only need more $$$money$$$. So please donate!


Agreed, there was no world class lab coming up with a new method to better to work done by BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry) and Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples. Just one guy working for the starchild project making claims he could not back up.

"Step right up, step right up ladies and gentlemen, witness the amazing starchild skull, aliens from another planet. Wonders of the imagination. It's the greatest show on Earth , just pay the man at the door..."



P T Barnum would be so proud.
edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Yes I noticed those inconsistencies, that's why everything on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt. The two holes do interest me though, especially if more than one skull has the same type of holes. And even more so if those skulls were from distant places on the Earth. My first guess would be that the holes are some type of crude method for releasing pressure or built up fluids from inside the skull as it undergoes the deformation process, but that sounds very dangerous and not very likely. My second guess would be that those holes are how the aliens plug their brains into the matrix. Lol...



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




My second guess would be that those holes are how the aliens plug their brains into the matrix. lol


lol, how did i miss that? now im having to rethink my entire theory.


Have a star lol.

I can think up a couple of reasons why the holes might be there on that skull but they are just guesses.



edit on 5-4-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   


post by ChaoticOrder

My second guess would be that those holes are how the aliens plug their brains into the matrix. lol



HAHAHAHA! I have to admit that may be the best comment of the whole thread. I bow down to you ChaoticOrder. You win.

edit on 5-4-2014 by KanuTruth because: quote logic issues



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


My second guess would be that those holes are how the aliens plug their brains into the matrix. lol


Of course! ChaoticOrder has discovered the truth! Here it is! The evidence is clear!

Egyptian Aliens plugged into the matrix with those crazy head machines!




posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 




The so called star child has been proved to be human



'DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.'...


1. To be fair, if these buggers really ARE alien, then we wouldn't know enough about them or their DNA to determine whether or not they carry standard X and Y chromosomes. I believe in God the Father and Christ as my savior. Who knows how God constructed his other creations? Certainly we Earthlings are not the only ones in the universe created in His image. Other than a few debated passages in our Bible that I myself believe imply extraterrestrial existence, God is too big for just us alone. We humans are special because we are chosen to His image; we are His children. But wouldn't it be awfully boring if it were just us and angels?

2. Some might suggest that aliens created humans in a laboratory on a spaceship somewhere. Could they not have used their own DNA as the basis? Could there even be a component of DNA yet to be discovered?

3. Or to mix it all up... God created us in His image. Suppose He chose to do so by way of aliens. Maybe He inspired them to make us out of the organic materials from Earth- dirt, and women from the resulting male's DNA- rib.


All of these possibilities seem far-fetched and highly implausible to some, but no matter how implausible something is it cannot be ruled out until it can be 100% proved either way. Therefor, one could develop a theory based upon the evidence, but guess what... Light bends.

If the science is legit, then the OP presents good enough to warrant even a scholarly debate.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Nice information arguing on both sides. The biggest problem in all of this is "Why would an alien have the same or near the same form and DNA style to allow for this?". IF the data is correct stating that an unknown human type had this skull formation as natural would be much more believable. IF this type was scattered around the world and vanished with only skulls as the survivors begs another question. Why or How could they have been all over the place and still did not leave any one with this skull style within the DNA passed down. The expectation is some group in the world should have this as their standard form. That did not occur.

Perhaps this branch of humanity was not consistently viable with those of a normal human linage. The resultant hybrid might have been like a donkey. Occasionally viable for a single offspring but not capable of passing down the genes. The idea makes sense perhaps like the royals in Europe they interbred to the point of making the basic form too weak to maintain the linage.

Oddball observation. If the skull started out larger than normal what physical differences would have to be made for a woman to deliver a baby like this? Small differences in the size and shape of the infants head might make for a much harder birthing event. Investigation needs done on female remains to see if any pelvic differences are apparent.

It's an earth bound human ancestor that didn't make the grade for long term survival.

All suppositions



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Interesting point, but I have some questions.


First:




[1.] First they tell us that aliens skulls have only two plates in the skull (although im sure i can see a very faint jagged slit down the back)

[2.] Here they say 2 holes is what proves an alien skull..but if you look it clearly has 3 skull plates which by their own theory means it must be human!

[3.] ..and the first one with the 2 skull plates doesn't have the alleged tell tail 2 holes either.

...

Now here they are claiming that flat foreheads are a sign that the skulls must be human.

[4.] And then in the very next picture they present what they allege is an alien skull that has a flat forehead which by their own theory means it must be human!


1. I zoomed in real close, and I'm looking all over. I don't see it. Would you help point it out?
2. This may be reaching, but it looks more like a fracture because it doesn't appear to stretch far enough to outline a plate. Could this be a shot from the back of the head or somewhere else where the plates don't meet?
3. Could the holes not simply be out of sight on the photograph? Do all "alien" skulls have to have the holes, or is it just a common identifiable characteristic?
4. It looks more fluid to me than 'flat'. It doesn't have a defined flat section; there is no 'cliff' so to speak. The curvature seems too natural to be a scar from binding.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Coneheads probably looked funny as hell



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The DNA testing debates aside, the Alien looking skulls do visually appear much larger than humans skulls. I would like to see scientifically unbiased DNA testing carried out on the Alien skulls and let the results speak for themselves. In my opinion your first post one liner was cheap. Just saying....
edit on 6-4-2014 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join