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: 14
49
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte


And this is as sloppy a debunk as y'all are claiming Ketchum is...its BS!



How is it a sloppy debunk? She published a paper in a journal she bought. The evidence against her by reputable geneticists prove she had either "got it wrong" or "made it up". Now if that's the case that can mean one or 2 things for the starchild skull. 1, she got it wrong or 2, she made it up. That's going on the evidence of her published paper in her own journal.




posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Have any credible dna companies offered to analyze the skull?

I have always heard that the people were wanting donations for testing.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Have any credible dna companies offered to analyze the skull?

I have always heard that the people were wanting donations for testing.


Yep. In 1999 and 2003. Both said human DNA. Then Lloyd Pye said it wasn't. With using the BLAST program. Dr Robert Carter in 2011 days that the results are easy to make false by entering false parameters (such as entering human DNA and asking the program to match it 100% to chicken DNA). The only source that says its "alien" is Lloyd Pye and a vet who made claims about Bigfoot DNA and was later found to be an opossum.
edit on 282228/10/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
If you have time, read through this article.

Takes a good look at all the evidence. Even says that we can't possibly know if it's a hybrid as we have no alien DNA to compare the skull with. All the conclusion can say is it's abnormal. To me abnormal doesn't mean not human. It means abnormal.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I guess then you also deny that bigfoot can shapeshift into possums.jk

I will check out what you provided.


edit on 28-10-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Just shows that now days dna sampling is much cheaper and someone in the business should check it out.

One should have extreme concerns when the claim is made that the only way to prove alien dna is to compare it to alien dna. That is a nonstarter and it drives logic to the ditch. Really you want me to catch another alien to show you the starchild is alien? Then just rinse and repeat.

I do not trust debunkers at all.

I have very personal experience with doing things that debunkers claim very intelligently is impossible and they went to great lengths to show how something was faked except I myself repeated the test and found that it is totally possible and easy to do.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TerryDon79

Just shows that now days dna sampling is much cheaper and someone in the business should check it out.

One should have extreme concerns when the claim is made that the only way to prove alien dna is to compare it to alien dna. That is a nonstarter and it drives logic to the ditch. Really you want me to catch another alien to show you the starchild is alien? Then just rinse and repeat.

I do not trust debunkers at all.

I have very personal experience with doing things that debunkers claim very intelligently is impossible and they went to great lengths to show how something was faked except I myself repeated the test and found that it is totally possible and easy to do.



The Starchild project want something like $7 million to do a full DNA test on the human genome and the Starchild skull.

The problem with you claim of debunkers is quite a strange one. On some aspects I agree, some would say the flat earthers are trying to debunk sphere earth. But then you have some like this. I wouldn't be so quick to paint all debunkers with the brush. Just because someone believes one "truth" doesn't mean they believe all "truths". I'm sure I've seen that somewhere, but I can't recall where.
With DNA we can compare human to human and say "yes. It's human". Same as everything. What we can also do is compare human to frog and say "that DNA is definitely not a frog". What the DNA tests of the skull are actually saying is (more or less) "yes. This is human, but with abnormalities within itself". We can't say the Starchild skull is alien or "non-human" as we don't have any DNA to compare it to. So sciences most educated guess, twice, is that it is infact human.
edit on 280528/10/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte


And this is as sloppy a debunk as y'all are claiming Ketchum is...its BS!



How is it a sloppy debunk? She published a paper in a journal she bought. The evidence against her by reputable geneticists prove she had either "got it wrong" or "made it up". Now if that's the case that can mean one or 2 things for the starchild skull. 1, she got it wrong or 2, she made it up. That's going on the evidence of her published paper in her own journal.


Yes it was published in her journal, that's the point; it is a perfectly legitimate publish. As opposed to a "fake peer review".

On the other; just WHO was that "reputable geneticist?"



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte


And this is as sloppy a debunk as y'all are claiming Ketchum is...its BS!



How is it a sloppy debunk? She published a paper in a journal she bought. The evidence against her by reputable geneticists prove she had either "got it wrong" or "made it up". Now if that's the case that can mean one or 2 things for the starchild skull. 1, she got it wrong or 2, she made it up. That's going on the evidence of her published paper in her own journal.


Yes it was published in her journal, that's the point; it is a perfectly legitimate publish. As opposed to a "fake peer review".



Ah I see. So she published it in a journal she bought so she could get her paper in it (the only thing published was her Bigfoot story). But it's all legit?

Conversation is over now.

You have no interest in any facts.
edit on 283528/10/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
We can't say the Starchild skull is alien or "non-human" as we don't have any DNA to compare it to. So sciences most educated guess, twice, is that it is infact human.


You don't see the broken logic here, do you

We do have millions of "non-human" DNA to compare against. There is even a database just for that.

Do you know HOW they determine a new species? They test the DNA, and when it doesn't match anything in the data...it is a new species.

The only thing starchild DNA says about being Human is that, like the chimpanzee, starchild is probably related, though distantly, and definitely NOT Human.

You need to increase the resolution and depth of you queries...



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte


And this is as sloppy a debunk as y'all are claiming Ketchum is...its BS!



How is it a sloppy debunk? She published a paper in a journal she bought. The evidence against her by reputable geneticists prove she had either "got it wrong" or "made it up". Now if that's the case that can mean one or 2 things for the starchild skull. 1, she got it wrong or 2, she made it up. That's going on the evidence of her published paper in her own journal.


Yes it was published in her journal, that's the point; it is a perfectly legitimate publish. As opposed to a "fake peer review".



Ah I see. So she published it in a journal she bought so she could get her paper in it (the only thing published was her Bigfoot story). But it's all legit?

Conversation is over now.

You have no interest in any facts.


Yes...perfectly legitimate!

She published her own work, in her own journal. She violated no laws, morals, or treaties...

Who was that "reputable geneticist, again?"



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TerryDon79

I guess then you also deny that bigfoot can shapeshift into possums.jk

I will check out what you provided.



I found an Alien hybrid Bigfoot child in my window well a couple of months back.



I'm sure Melba would concur.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
This, from the Starchildproject site made me laugh:

A... the preliminary evidence indicates it is quite distinct from humans.
B... our FOXP2 results are preliminary, as are the results from the earlier nuclear DNA fragments, and the mitochondrial DNA fragments. All three preliminary results are highly indicative of what the final result will be, but they cannot be considered absolute proof.
C... They can, however, be considered proof that absolute proof will come when the Starchild’s entire genome can finally be recovered.

So: point A proves nothing, only indicates. Point B proves nothing, also only indicates. But no, we don't understand, they actually PROVE it is non human!! (point C)

Of course, if they say so....... and it's only been 16 years! We can totally understand why they post another preliminary result every couple of years or so!

~rolls eyes~

And I would like to know why the 'latest discoveries' have been done in secret unnamed labs and with secret unnamed scientists, when they could have been making millions with their discovery!

~rolls eyes again~

edit on 28-10-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

Yes it was published in her journal, that's the point; it is a perfectly legitimate publish

Yes...perfectly legitimate!

She published her own work, in her own journal. She violated no laws, morals, or treaties...

Who was that "reputable geneticist, again?"



ETHICS!!!!!



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: tanka418


Melba Ketchum wants $9000


I'll look into it for half that. :-)

This pic, featured on Ketchum's beggar site:



Does anyone not see that those two jaws are almost exactly the same size?

Harte


(post by Harte removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Now that you mention it...


Optical illusion.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

She is a D V M: a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.

And, I do believe that would be sufficient qualification for the job of geneticist, depending of course on any extra course work she may have done.



Just like being a [cough] software engineer qualifies you for the same job.
edit on 28-10-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79






What we can also do is compare human to frog and say "that DNA is definitely not a frog".


Can we?

I was under the impression that we are frogs by that notion because we have all the dna of a frog plus more.

I am sure I will find out soon on that one.

This is the basis for my conclusion and that is if you take my dna in its totality and compare it to the starchilds dna and it shows that we are a match except the starchild has more dna than mine then that is enough to remove the starchild from the human list and put on another list that would be alien



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

Yes it was published in her journal, that's the point; it is a perfectly legitimate publish

Yes...perfectly legitimate!

She published her own work, in her own journal. She violated no laws, morals, or treaties...

Who was that "reputable geneticist, again?"




ETHICS!!!!!



I don't think here is the place to get into the rights of intellectual property creator/owners.


And in my world of the Esoteric, and technology...that is rather normal. We call them "White Papers"...I receive dozens every week. Sometimes they can be quite helpful...from an engineering standpoint.


edit on 28-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)







 
49
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join