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.

 

The Starchild Skull

page: 12
49
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418
Oh...no geneticist, no lab...just simple mathematics


That's basically saying...
"I know the Starchild skull is alien!"
"How do you know?"
"Tests were done."
"By whom?"
"No one. Maths proved it."

Mathematics can't prove genetics, just like an eco biologist can't prove astrology. It's 2 completely different areas.

Just because you want to believe something is real doesn't mean it is real


Except that everything I've done is based on the data released by Lloyd Pye. You know, the data he obtained by his geneticist.

You truly need to get all your background sorted out before you comment...that way you don't wind up attempting some "weasel" technique to attempt to "cheat" the results to favor your position...truly bad form that.

Oh...and y'all are misusing the word "alien"...but even so; I never said it was "alien"...I said it was not human.



Who is his geneticist and at which lab does he work?




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
I've asked you multiple time to "prove it".


I have proved it multiple times....

that the child was both male and human, and that both of his parents must have been human "



Using the available current and relevant data; prove that it is Human!


I just did again!

How about you prove it was not human? What facts do you have?

All you have is


no geneticist, no lab


You have nothing but your need and want for it not to be human!



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
Who is his geneticist and at which lab does he work?


Apparently "no geneticist, no lab"!



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

How does the fact the cranium did not encase a human brain indicate it was human? nothing about it is human. explain the chemistry of the bone which is not human. explain the red residue inside the bone. explain the wear on the teeth indicating it was not a child. explain the fibers inside the non-human bone. explain the hardness of the non-human bone. oh that's right! it is non-human. that explains it.

Except there is no brain and you made that up. That is what your myth requires, lies and creating information which is another form of lie. The brain is long since decayed. It was a human with genetic mutations and as I already proved the FOXP2 gene is evidence of this.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

Oh...and y'all are misusing the word "alien"...but even so; I never said it was "alien"...I said it was not human.



Seems to me "y'all" were referencing a "species of human" living in the vicinity of the Pleiades, whatever that means.

So which is it - not human or human?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Nicholas Bachynsky, a medical doctor and twice-convicted criminal whose licenses were revoked in the early 1990s

www.quackwatch.com...

So credible.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

What geneticist at what lab came to that determination?

The only 2 labs to ever look into the Starchild both 100% concluded the mother was human, and that the Child was a male, and also 100% human.

Please link to me what lab and what geneticist you think has disputed those findings.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

Well. that is kind of empty now isn't it...you know full well that the only extant data is Pye's, thus this "proof" using other data is not possible.

I have been sourcing Pye's data all thread long. The 1999 testing and 2003 testing which was done by credible labs which Pye respected and paid for both concluded 100% human. Why is that data not "Pye's data?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

The most compelling evidence is that when you hold the skull at a certain angle, with the face broken off and the jaw missing, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the aliens depicted in movies and on TV.

And when you cover it with green clay and insert black, almond shaped eyes it's case closed.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


So long as you do it "with no alien in mind", which explains the green clay and black eyes.



Seriously it would be cool if this were something like what Pye suggests, but come on. Even Jaime Maussan knew when to give up and call a marmoset a marmoset.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?


Non-human human from the Pleiades.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?


Non-human human from the Pleiades.


I wish it was true. Maybe the deformities of the Starchild skull is caused by the blue sun?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?


Non-human human from the Pleiades.


I wish it was true. Maybe the deformities of the Starchild skull is caused by the blue sun?


Or brain swelling from all the ridiculously bad science and logic surrounding it.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?


Non-human human from the Pleiades.


I wish it was true. Maybe the deformities of the Starchild skull is caused by the blue sun?


Or brain swelling from all the ridiculously bad science and logic surrounding it.

Or from having to travel 444 light years.

That would certainly get boring.

Maybe he was blowing up balloons and one "backfired"? Would explain the head shape.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?

It's a non Earth human with identical DNA which is why the DNA is completely unlike that of a human.

If you read that and said HUH WHAT? then you are like any other non biased person with critical thinking skills.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: draknoir2

So when you create a picture depicting what you want, it looks like what you intended it to look like? In that case my mind is changed, alien for sure.


Oh for sure.

But I believe you were meant to say "non-human"?

It's a non Earth human with identical DNA which is why the DNA is completely unlike that of a human.

If you read that and said HUH WHAT? then you are like any other non biased person with critical thinking skills.


Oh no it makes perfect sense. A biological being, from an unknown distance away, has been around for an unknown amount of time, has the same DNA as humans (albeit some quite dramatic deformities and DNA mutations), got buried in a mine 900 years ago.

See? Makes perfect sense



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
I have proved it multiple times


No, actually you keep parroting the same bit of disinformation.

You have not proven anything yet, except that you can't prove the skull Human.

And remember the original challenge:
"Using the available current and relevant data; prove that it is Human!"

You see its that wee bit about using available current relevant data. Care to actually use that?



How about you prove it was not human? What facts do you have?



I've posted it to you twice!

So...what we have here is a collection of people incapable of using modern science, who haven't the sense to use what is available to them, and prefer to embrace ignorance.

None of you can prove this thing to be Human, even with data that you say "proves" it...I think yall are a bit confused...seriously folks, if what you are saying is real; proving this thing to be Human should be easy with the current data, yet, you cannot. All you seem to be capable of is attempting to twist this into something unrecognizable, what a serious fail!

So...anyway; IF you can't prove this thing Human; Pye wins the argument, and you fail.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
So...anyway; IF you can't prove this thing Human; Pye wins the argument, and you fail.



Pye paid two labs to do testing. Both labs came to the conclusion the skull is a 100% human male.

Care to share what geneticist at which lab has more recent data?



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join