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 Genetic Study Suggests the Pharaohs of Egypt Were Alien Hybrids

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ffx6554
unless the monetary reward is extremely great(the Roswell slides people needed money to present the slides.)


Why did they need money to show their hoax? All they had to do was release a good copy of the slide on the internet, the cost to do that is nothing. But if they did that it would have immediately have stopped their attempt at a hoax, as people would have immediately seen the label showing it was just a mummy, and they would not have made any money from it. Remember, that is the whole reason people are pushing aliens/ufo's/etc., to make money.



Don't just rule everything as a hoax, until you rule out all of the motives.


When the motive is just to make money, you can pretty well see it is just a hoax.




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Read the first page, here's the quote if you can't find it:

"there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation"



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ffx6554

Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon,
Seriously? You actually believe that?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: hellobruce

Read the first page, here's the quote if you can't find it:

"there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation"


As we saw that claim was just another lie from the hoaxers, as it was able to be read - but the hoaxers tried to claim that they showed it to the Pentagon! But some gullible people believe that!



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: hellobruce

Read the first page, here's the quote if you can't find it:

"there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation"

There is no such department at the Pentagon, Adobe has openly said that they never did any analysis (nor do they offer analysis).
....And you believe this, why?
edit on 6/6/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: hellobruce

Read the first page, here's the quote if you can't find it:

"there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation"

There is no such department at the Pentagon, Adobe has openly said that they never did any analysis (nor do they offer analysis).
....And you believe this, why?



He saw it on the interweb, so it must be true!



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Wait, which is the original image, the one with the blurred rectangle with nothing on it, or the one with the blurred letters?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ffx6554
You would have had to pay up and go to the show to find out.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: hellobruce

Wait, which is the original image, the one with the blurred rectangle with nothing on it, or the one with the blurred letters?


The one with "nothing on it". Except, it does, in fact, have writing on it, that can be clearly brought out via some simple changes in contrast, and the writing clearly identifies it as the mummified body of a two year-old boy.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You got me this time, Phage. I guess the U.S wouldn't make a mistake of letting these bodies out huh?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ffx6554

Bodies?
Wait. What? I thought you were talking about a slide.
edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: hellobruce

Don't assume that it's a hoax, just because you can't find his name. Many people have been killed for trying to tell the truth, so maybe he altered his name around a little bit.

Dude, the original article links to this study. Go there and find us any mention at all of alien DNA.

Harte



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I've tried to put it in my Photo Editor, and saw no changes.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

keep in mind that the paracas skulls show two 1/8 inch holes in the top back of the skull, on the centerline...never seen on human skulls...

Actually, found on every human skull:


The parietal foramen.

Harte



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Oh good Lord, is that what he meant? Lol.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I've tried to put it in my Photo Editor, and saw no changes.




There is a thread on ATS that gives you the step by step instructions to unblurry the plackard. You do it off there photos!!! Not some bs put togather by the threads author.



There is nothing wrong with buying into a well planned hoax. I promis you you would be HARD pressed to find anyone on ATS that hasn't.


However you look silly argueing for an obvious fraud AFTER it's been thouroghly debunked (even by coast to coast AM and ground zero conspiracy radio shows).


Deny ignorence and even tho we all are some time, don't be be ignorant!!



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: ffx6554
a reply to: hellobruce

Read the first page, here's the quote if you can't find it:

"there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation"

There is no such department at the Pentagon, Adobe has openly said that they never did any analysis (nor do they offer analysis).
....And you believe this, why?


Bet the answer has something to do with Disclose TV.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: sled735

I still believe that aliens have visited Earth long ago...to this day it is impossible to determine how the great pyramids were built so perfectly in line with the stars and Earth's longitude and latitude.


If people like you actually did even 10 minutes research you would realize that this whole thing of the great pyramids somehow aligning with stars, and longitude/latitude is a MYTH and it has been debunked by very credible scientists/astronomers many times over many years.
It is so cringeworthy to have to witness people still bringing this up...

***Rolls eyes until they fall out of my head***


It also amazes me that current engineers can't even build sh*t even close to the complexity to what Engineers did back in Egypt so don't even start on it with me. I have done more research on this stuff more than you have sir.


The reason we can't make many of the ancient monuments today is because of economics. Nobody is going to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars to build a useless giant building. Take any GOOD engineer in the world today give them an unlimited budget and they would cover the planet with pyramids twice the size and grandeur of the great one at Giza.

There is not a single logistical or mechanical reason we cannot build the great pyramid today. It's purely economic. There isn't a stone on there we can't lift, and there isn't a tolerance on there we can't match.

I totally understand getting sucked into the AA narrative, but it's full of holes. I totally believe there is lost history, advanced ancient cultures, possibly alien intervention in our history, but sadly many of the people spreading these ideas are using flat out lies to back up their position.

Not all research is created equal, and if you've spent all or even a majority of your time sticking to AA theory websites and youtube videos you aren't getting the whole story.



Oh my goodness. You actually believe that don't you... WOW.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: sled735

I still believe that aliens have visited Earth long ago...to this day it is impossible to determine how the great pyramids were built so perfectly in line with the stars and Earth's longitude and latitude.

Whether or not Egyptians were experimented on or there was some form of sexual inheritance from our space visitors is a topic that will go on for years to come.

Interesting thread though.


Can't help but point and laugh at what is arguably the most idiotic comment on ATS for the duration of this 24hrs...



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Not that I disagree, but you might want to re-word that, as it comes awfully close to violating rules re: decorum.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join