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.

 

Starchild Skull DNA Testing Proves Not From This Earth

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Since the DNA evidence isn't conclusive, the next thing to examine, it seems to me, is the material that the skull is made of. Why is the skull harder than a human skull? Is it made of calcium, like human bones, or something else. In the official reports sections it is stated that,

www.starchildproject.com...


calcium hydroxyapatite (the essence of all mammalian bone), its parts are configured "naturally" (not cobbled together or in any other way hoaxed), and it presents numerous physical anomalies that do not conform to standard skull norms.


Aparently it is more like tooth than bone, and has strange fibers inside the bone. If the authors of the official reports can be validated as dong the work stated with the credentials listed then clearly this is something extremely unique, and not explainable through normal biological development.

Also, I wonder why teams haven't been sent down to look for the remaining skeleton. If a young girl wondering in a cave found it, then surely teams searching through these cave would also be able to find the skeletal remains. The whole story of the discovery is very fishy.

It seems extremely unrealistic that some horny ET made it with a human female and she bored a child from the union. If the skull of the child is this different from a normal child, then it seems highly unlikely that two species so completely different could produce an offspring. Most likely such an offspring would have to be the result of genetic manipulation, but if so, you think the aliens would have kept the woman and the child in a very controlled environment so they could monitor their experiment. Maybe she escaped, hid in a cave, and died there with the child. Then again, maybe these ET's were doing some illegal experiments, the ET cops tracked them down, and they hid the woman and child to save their skins. I think the latter story sounds more believable, but still it is nothing but wild speculation.

If this child was the result of genetic manipulation, some sort of scientific experiment that was hastily abandoned, then maybe considerably more evidence of ETs could be found at the site were the skull was found. Possibly more skulls like this one are at this site.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATruGod
He states they couldn't retrieve Nuclear DNA on 6 attempts so they conclude its not of this world, but moms DNA is? Doesnt that make it "from this world".

I just don't see how this lack of evidence proves anything.




Although it would be interesting to see I must agree with your statement. It is dangerous to begin to use the claim of a 'lack' of evidence as actual evidence. As one of our esteemed skeptics is fond of saying "it's circular logic". hehe

Seriously though, I watched the show and they did not ever state that it was NOT from this world. Just that they couldn't obtain a good sample of DNA which is not exactly uncommon for old bones and such.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
If it was a real skull it would be all over the news. The Phoenix Lights, Roswell, Stephenville, and Edgar Mitchell and occasionally Betty and Barney Hill are usually on the news/tv repeatedly. Why?

How could this guy find proof of alien life before NASA, SETI, MUFON, US AMRY, ect. ect..? To me the skull is clearly fake, unless someone has more to add...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I think that the skull looks like a deformed person IMHO! But you never know, it could be an ET that sure would be cool and not really surprising at all considering that they probably have been visiting this planet for many thousands of years if not "MILLIONS"!

PEACE! devil












[edit on 8-12-2008 by damdevildog]


[edit on 8-12-2008 by damdevildog]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by game over man
If it was a real skull it would be all over the news. The Phoenix Lights, Roswell, Stephenville, and Edgar Mitchell and occasionally Betty and Barney Hill are usually on the news/tv repeatedly. Why?

How could this guy find proof of alien life before NASA, SETI, MUFON, US AMRY, ect. ect..? To me the skull is clearly fake, unless someone has more to add...


That's an interesting assumption. There are plenty of things happening currently (or that happened recently) that weren't "all over" the news, and they were happening in present day! Because it isn't all over the news doesn't mean that it isn't real. It just means that it's not what the mass media corporations are being told and/or paid to talk about. They follow the money, just like every other corporation. If there's no money to be made by reporting the story, they won't do it.

Proof of alien life before those groups? I seriously doubt it. Releasing it to the public first? Maybe. I seriously doubt that the government would release to the public actual proof of extraterrestrial life. They keep quiet so many other things that are far more trivial - so what makes you think they'd tell us if they'd found life from another planet? We're not exactly on a "need to know basis" here... we're just the "slaves".



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
ppl being gullable yes..yes they are



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


When the opinions of qualified professionals are ignored out of hand and the evidence is as weak as that presented in the video; the only conclusion is that they have an unusual human scull and are trying to sell a book based on it. Nothing else can be concluded from this based on the evidence.

All that this "proves" is that due to the age of the scull, no good DNA test is possible. Everything else is supposition with extreme prejudice on their part.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Since the DNA evidence isn't conclusive, the next thing to examine, it seems to me, is the material that the skull is made of. Why is the skull harder than a human skull? Is it made of calcium, like human bones, or something else. In the official reports sections it is stated that,

www.starchildproject.com...


calcium hydroxyapatite (the essence of all mammalian bone), its parts are configured "naturally" (not cobbled together or in any other way hoaxed), and it presents numerous physical anomalies that do not conform to standard skull norms.


Aparently it is more like tooth than bone, and has strange fibers inside the bone. If the authors of the official reports can be validated as dong the work stated with the credentials listed then clearly this is something extremely unique, and not explainable through normal biological development.

Also, I wonder why teams haven't been sent down to look for the remaining skeleton. If a young girl wondering in a cave found it, then surely teams searching through these cave would also be able to find the skeletal remains. The whole story of the discovery is very fishy.

It seems extremely unrealistic that some horny ET made it with a human female and she bored a child from the union. If the skull of the child is this different from a normal child, then it seems highly unlikely that two species so completely different could produce an offspring. Most likely such an offspring would have to be the result of genetic manipulation, but if so, you think the aliens would have kept the woman and the child in a very controlled environment so they could monitor their experiment. Maybe she escaped, hid in a cave, and died there with the child. Then again, maybe these ET's were doing some illegal experiments, the ET cops tracked them down, and they hid the woman and child to save their skins. I think the latter story sounds more believable, but still it is nothing but wild speculation.

If this child was the result of genetic manipulation, some sort of scientific experiment that was hastily abandoned, then maybe considerably more evidence of ETs could be found at the site were the skull was found. Possibly more skulls like this one are at this site.



i agree with pretty much everything you said, good post, good input.

i think it would be a good idea to shift our focus from the DNA issue as we just keep spouting the same thing(well most of us)

the issue concerning the site of discovery is indeed an interesting one.
but what if the skull had been used prior to its find but after its seperation so to speak, as a religious icon or artifact perhaps.
should this be the case there would probably not be anything left from the skeleton belonging to the skull.

now can anyone confirm that it is not a fossil ??
because if it is a fossil could the fibers not have entered during the fossilisation (if there even is such a word)?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
it was about a 2 hour interview with one of the guys who had custody of the skull.

he went on about how no major doctor would touch the thing cause the make up of the bone.

its a medical fact that each human has the same density of bone. yet this one skull has so many different characteristics. one thing that was not mentioned in the little video is about the nasal and sinus passages. they are extremely tiny and not nearly as deeply based in the skull

based on the evidence. i think of the skull as not conlusively HUMAN.

here is the link to the starchild audio recordings.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by LordThumbs]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leto
Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Leto


hardly know abything about genetics? Where have you been the last 30 years? you do realize we have mapped the entire human genome yes? and saying that we dont know everything int saying we know nothing. We know about speciation, well documented.

We may not know everything, but we know alot.

This is the very thing that allows species to seperate along the evolutionary ladder.

again, I state it again, you cant just "have sex with an alien" and get a hybrid especially with a being who has a diffeent nucleo peptide chaining method.
and thats besides the point all together! the premise of this video is that since they couldnt extract the fathers DNA, it must be an alien!

And that is utter and complete NON SENSE.


OK I'm sorry but this is getting silly on so many levels.
To start with, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence. Reality simply doesn't work that way.


When you map the genome of every species on this planet,

Just because this hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done. There are costs and time involved.


when you bring back to life extinct species such as the mammoth and the tasmanian tiger,

There are many scientists working on this right now. I recently read an article interviewing a scientist explaining that he could create a mammoth for approx. 10 million dollars. So if you have 10million on you, you can have one right now !

www.nytimes.com...

Not to mention scientists have been able to get soft tissue from a T-Rex and are trying to pull DNA from it.


and when you solve the hunger problem through genetics, and when you cure the genetic diseases, and when you improve human senses such as sight and hearing through genetics, and when you increase the human lifespan through genetics,

We're working on it but keep in mind that money has a lot to do with this, not the lack of knowledge.


then you can you say we humans know a little about genetics.

So in your world, all that knowledge gets us to know A LITTLE about genetics? You may want to adjust your expectations just a bit.


Right now we know practically nothing about genetics compared to what's achieveable.

Please back up this statement. Please post specific scientific papers that show we know "PRACTICALLY NOTHING" about genetics.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Perhaps the being had no father?
Perhaps it's the skull of Eve..



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   



What if they found a forensics expert who does facial reconstruction from skulls? What would they determine? Would the results be the same?



Problem inherent with the construction would be a forensic reconstructor would only be gifted in the construction of homo sapien heads. I doubt that there are many out there who have had practice rebuilding alien features.
They would definately supply us with a more complete and accurate account of the facial features, with regards to it being completely homo sapien.
The other question I had, was how they had difficulty constructing both sets of DNA. Even if they have a partial sequence from the male, surely they would be able to tell if it was human or not, right? I don't understand how they got the female side, and not the male. Or perhaps they did, but didn't want to say?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   


Not to mention scientists have been able to get soft tissue from a T-Rex and are trying to pull DNA from it.


Hmm. Soft tissue from a creature extinct and buried for 65 million years? Do you have a source for this claim?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
im listening to the interview on this link
and im finding more and more amazing information on the FACTS of the skull..

the skull is completely symetrical. which leads me to believe the skull is not a disformed human skull which was caused by pressure within the skull.

PLEASE listen to the interview in the link.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
interesting! But i have to agree with the first post! If the child was born of human, wouldn't it make the child human?

Unless of course the woman slept with an Alien...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

sorry but i really do have a very hard time reading your post, if you want to include verything you want to quote it really does help to code every section individually, takes 2 minutes

not to flame or anything, just to make it easier for everyone.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion


Not to mention scientists have been able to get soft tissue from a T-Rex and are trying to pull DNA from it.


Hmm. Soft tissue from a creature extinct and buried for 65 million years? Do you have a source for this claim?


I actually meant to post a source.
Sorry. Here are a few different sources.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Hello All!

I am so happy someone posted something on the subject although the video has been floating around for a while now.

Lloyd Pye was very recently on Coast to Coast with George Noory giving an update.

He has found a company who has granted them a donation to make the 2nd round of testing possible. It should take place in early 2009. They also will be having a film crew who will be following it play by play for a documentary they will be releasing after the new testing is over. The below paragraph is the reason for the new testing and straight from the website www.starchildproject.com

****************BREAKTHROUGH IN DNA RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY:
Since we first began testing the Starchild scientifically, our ultimate goal has been to recover and sequence its nuclear DNA. Only then, by "reading" the DNA of both its parents, can we be certain of its genetic heritage. However, until now we've been thwarted because the chemical "primers" used in DNA recovery could never "locate" the Starchild's nuclear DNA. In seven attempts, not one "pickup" was made. This is a strong indication (but not yet an inarguable proof) that the Starchild's nuclear DNA is not entirely human.
Now, however, the stalemate can be resolved. A few months ago scientists in the US and Germany announced their ability to sequence the Neanderthal genome within the next two years. This will use new, extremely cutting edge technology whose principle breakthrough is that it no longer requires primers. It can reassemble a genome literally piece-by-piece, base pair-by-base pair. Consequently, our geneticists tell us that sometime in 2008 they should be able to use this new technology to recover a large part of the Starchild's nuclear DNA. This exciting and potentially historic development means we should finally be able to definitively determine if the Starchild is, as we strongly suspect, something other than entirely human. *****************

If you are a member of Coast you can stream the past show here>
www.coasttocoastam.com...

Hope this helps! I started a myspace group for the starchild a while ago, if you care to join please drop me some email at www.myspace.com...

Thanks!
Gen



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion


Not to mention scientists have been able to get soft tissue from a T-Rex and are trying to pull DNA from it.


Hmm. Soft tissue from a creature extinct and buried for 65 million years? Do you have a source for this claim?


Yes, here you go
It's been all over the news for awhile now.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.newscientist.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Oodain
 


Thanks for the reply. I find it frustrating that many posters don't even seem to try and analyze the information provided by the web site.

It seems to me that finding the original grave site should be as important if not more important than DNA analysis. If this is real, I would think that it would have to be the result of genetic manipulation. If it is the result of genetic manipulation, some type of experiment carried out by aliens, then why did they leave the test subject in this manner. Also, isn't there good odds that there would be more than 1 test subject, and exploration of the original grave site could reveal a great deal more information.

I wrote an email to the guy whose link is provided by the web site asking why there isn't an ongoing search for the original grave site. I will post back when I get a reply.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join