It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
specialized form of In vitro fertilisation
What is wrong with you? You are making the claim the Lloyd Pye theorized that the alien was a 3 person baby. He never did this. Yes, we all know that 3 person baby's now are possible, and you for some reason thought it necessary to post 17 links explaining the same exact thing. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS LLOYD PYE'S THEORY. LLOYD PYE SPECIFICALLY STATES HE BELIEVED IT TO BE THE RESULT OF AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL MAN AND A HUMAN WOMAN. List me just ONE source where Lloyd Pye states this. Don't you think that if that was his theory, he would say it just once?
Your above comment does NOTHING to prove that Lloyd Pye was "onto" 3 person baby. Your quote that you copy and pasted is saying that the section of MtDNA they sequenced was from likely a human. They went on to say that this does not necessarily mean that all other sections of it would yield the same results, but this is obvious. This does not mean anything. It is just the most appropriate way to state that the MtDNA they sequenced appeared to be human. Show me ONE piece of evidence that Lloyd Pye was "onto a 3 parent baby long before we had even know it exists." ITS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THIS STATEMENT TO BE CORRECT. The Starchild child skull was found in 1999. The first case of successful 3 parent baby using cytoplasmic transfer was in 1997. 1997 is before 1999. You're wrong. You're wrong about everything you say, I have never seen anything like this. ADMIT THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
Please enumerate the "supernatural abilities" we used to have before the aliens took them away and what is your evidence that these abilities existed?
I always like how the fact that we are now able to replace one human's mtDNA with another human's mtDNA and carry the child to term based on TPIVF is somehow equivalent to, "This is how the aliens did it!"
An etiology of what, exactly? An arcane virus, perhaps?
Science says we are of this planet, and that what we would consider anatomically modern humans evolved from an ancestor about 250,000 years ago. Your version of religion says that we were created 6000 years ago. (Aside: Nowhere in the Bible does it say we were created 6000 years ago. A Bishop came up with that number based on treating the Bible as an absolute genealogy.) So we have two possibilities: 1. The Bible is not a "historical document" and shouldn't be taken as one, and the evidence-backed science of the origin of our species should be accepted. 2. Aliens took us from our home planet and deposited us here.
a reply to: josehelps Lawrence, I've got a question for you. I noticed that a while back, you stated that "During the finishing of my site I find an article from the same people working on the human genome project, dated back 2007, claiming they are 100% proof positive to have now figured out that codes in our Junk DNA sectors were NOT created on Earth, but by Extraterrestrials." You then posted the article you were referring to: rense.com... My question to you. Do you still consider this a valid source of evidence for the claim the certain sections of human DNA were created by extraterrestrials? Looking forward to hearing from you.
a reply to: josehelps Another question for you, Lawrence. You you also made the statement: I told you I told you, The bible told you if you only knew how to read it, and now science is telling you. It starts back in January 1988 in a Newsweek magazine, that featured their main article which was "Mitochondrial Eve." It proves that the same science that tells us who murdered your neighbor, the same science that tells us who the father of a child is, is now telling us that their is obviously no way that God created us about 6,000 years ago. Additionally Eves female contemporaries, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day. This was a blow to Christianity. It also speculated the two were abducted and brought here. You went on to post this link: www.virginia.edu... I must have missed it, but could you please show me where in this article they "speculate the two were abducted and brought here." Thanks, looking forward to hearing from you.
originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: TzarChasm
what does a baby with three parents have to do with evolution?
It proves that our planet has had intervention since the dawn of time, which is exactly how we got here, not through Evolution.
According to the bible, and science today. We have, and have had people that have the supernatural ability to Remote view. aka, astral project, aka, the third eye, aka, perceive in the bible, aka visions in the bible. There are 118 visions documented in the bible that all ceased after the following order...
Isaiah's Commission from the Lord
And please, I don't know "itsthetooht" so call me Jose. I have read some sections of what he posted, and it looks like he was off to a good start.
More importantly, how long until you bring up target food?
then once again...please explain why HSS genetics are shared with every single other form of life on Earth. Why do we share such close lineage with of the members of the genus Homo and with all other Great Apes on Earth? It's not evidence of hybridization when genetic differences are less than 1.5%. Its indicative of common descent. There are definitive genetic markers showing hybridization between AMH and Neanderthal as well as Denisovans. If your magic aliens plopped us on earth in order to hybridize with them(which would have been 100% impossible if we had not shared very close genetic ties and a common ancestor), they would have had to have brought us to earth approximately 50KYA at the latest. Why then did it take them additional tens of thousands of years for civilization top start? Your statements, which as you admit in another reply are not your own but copy and pasted from Pye's site, are devoid of logic, science and reality. Please address the above issues or admit you haven't the foggiest notion what you're on about and are simply a Lloyd Pye parrot devoid of an original thought in your dome.
Isaiah is in the Old Testament. There's a wealth of visions after Isaiah in the Old Testament, as well as a wealth of visions in the New Testament. Your premise is false.