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! Starchild Skull DNA Result..

page: 13
161
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
[Nicely laid out post. I would like to think that more people would spend some time and effort to delve into the Starchild website before running roughshood through this thread. ]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SaosinEngaged
[Would you please inform me as to the reason(s) why you are positively sure that the origins of this skull are earthly in nature so that I may then spend my time and effort on other subjects. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


That seems a good possibility for the red fibers inside the skull. Evidently these fibers are tougher than nails and therefore could survive intact (in the bone) for this long.

P.S. that is one nasty disease. I went to the Research Institute's website and saw what was coming out of that poor child's lip.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
THis is very interesting. OK I understand it's something we don't know. BUT why is it "alien"? could be something that's from the earth but we never knew about. Certainly it's believable. It's different and fascinating. Another life form. But how can we know WHERE it is coming from? Are we assuming too much?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Jesuswasasailor
 


Would you mind explaining to me why, you believe the skull to be of E.T origin without first the skull having been scientifically verified to be even worthy of this level of recognition?

Because you believe what Mr. Pye has to say?

Well it seems he's succeeded.



To answer your question: I am not the type of person to believe a charlatan trying to proclaim a human skull with obvious genetic mutations (perfectly fitting the criteria for Progeria) is actually that of an "E.T./ Human Hybrid."

That type of a claim needs sufficient verification, publication, and academic research.

All I see is a con artist toting around his "magic skull" like a bad side show act.


Don't be so quick to believe those that claim to have "scientific evidence" of things. It doesn't quite work that way.

And don't underestimate the human drive to turn, literally anything, into a money making scheme.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by SaosinEngaged]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SaosinEngaged
 


That email is FULL of things that can be refuted by people who have done extensive research on the skull. He went into great detail about what Progeria is, what can be expected from it, and provided a comparison with the starchild skull.

Is he wrong about Progeria? Or is he wrong about the Starchild skull?

In every part of a progeria victim's head you have a human counterpart. They have normal human eye sockets, normal foramen magnum placement, normal neck attachments, normal chewing muscle attachments, most definitely an inion, they have sinuses (though often reduced like other parts of the face under the cranium), they have brow ridges and a dip from that ridge down to the beginning of their noses, a curved roof of their mouths, normal inner ears, etc.

The Starchild has NONE of those typically human features. In fact, there are NO typically human features left in the Starchild skull.


This is what I'm interested in - I'm NOT interested in someone making blanket refutations because his concept of Occam's Razor says it's impossible. No offense.

So there's plenty there to either support, or refute his claims - but it would take someone who is versed in anatomy and has looked at the starchild skull, or a mold of it.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jesuswasasailor
 


Jesuswasasailor.....

The insults & ignorance implicit in your response preclude further useful dialogue.

Therefore I will forego attempts to indulge in same.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I agree that the SC skull 'looks' like what we would expect an alien grey's to look like.

What interests me with the SC skull is the man presenting the evidence. We can't prove aliens, but we can get a fair idea about the integrity of Pye.

Has he left out evidence that leads people to conclude that 'in all probability' the skull is human?

Has he presented ALL the evidence?

Is his presentation of the evidence neutral or leading?

Does he have an agenda that requires the SC skull to remain intriguing and inconclusive?

Does he have an incentive to leave out evidence?

These are a few questions we can look at in the hopes of achieving an indication as to what the SC skull really is. If the man has concealed evidence and has an incentive to continue to do so; we can infer that he's dishonest. If he's dishonest, then rational, terrestrial explanations for the skull would be more likely to be accurate. Is that a reasonable stance?


The sample taken from the Starchild Skull (SCS-1) has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone. While a single first extraction did not appear to type similarly, this inconsistent result is likely a product of a low level of contamination.
DNA from Starchild site

The human mother is definitely a native American. What about the father? We can't ask the lab ''Trace Genetics' because they have possibly gone out of business. The only report that references them is Pye's, but that isn't to imply it's a hoax report. They could have legitimately gone bust...it happens.

Nuclear DNA is difficult to extract from old bones and even more so if the remains had been subject to the environment e.g soil acidity, erosion etc. These factors aren't made clear by Pye. Instead he uses the absence of such evidence to lead the reader. It's fairly well worded, but the affect on the average reader's interpretation would encourage doubts of human parentage...


Attempts to recover DNA from the skull easily produced its mitochondrial DNA, which proved its mother was fully human. However, no nuclear DNA could be recovered using human-only primers, which strongly indicates that the skull's father was something other than a typical human.
Starchild Overview


DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.
The Ness: Starchild

DNA tests were conducted on the teeth as they contain the strongest chances of recovering DNA markers. The site doesn't offer a source for the 'Y-Chromosome' claim, however Dr David Sweet does exist. He is associated with criminal investigation where DNA and forensic analysis is required. A possible source for the DNA evidence was from here at Rense. So, has Pye left out the evidence that proves the skull is that of a human?

His focus appears to be on demonstrating to readers that it can't be human. He does this by pointing out differences in a normal human sample. The skull is not normal and didn't come from a normal human. It came from a deformed child. The child was aged around 4-5 years old and possibly died due to difficulties of it's condition.

The argument he uses about its extraordinary brain size (skull capacity) is inaccurate. He again leads the reader to share his conclusions and uses uncited claims.


One reasonable explanation for the morphology of the skull is a condition known as brachycephaly. Skulls similar to the SC are found here, here and the fused skull is explained here.

I prefer the popular Progeria explanation as it covers many of the bases. I'm pointing out that there are few stops on the train track before we get an out of space, extraterrestrial destination!

Pye makes a lot of the extraordinary size of the skull and claims it's 200cc larger than the average human. It isn't clear where the large capacity measurements are from and based on the video comparison it actually isn't larger than an adult human. It looks much smaller in comparison to Pye's own head. His figure of 1600cc is large, but not unusual...


Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc (cubic centimetres). The following figures should convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040-1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc.
Talk origins

Earlier this year we went through the same debate about Pye and his damned skull. At the time, Pye was 'just on the edge' of paying to complete an analyses on the skull. He needed some money again. Despite already having his proof that the skull was entirely human back in 1999, he's got a living to make and a belief he can't let go of. So what does he say about all this?


Any request for funding alternative research never goes over well with mainstream sycophants, even though every mainstream scientist rabidly seeks out their next infusion of grant money. What an incredible double-standard those jerks live by! And for what it's worth, this is only the SECOND time I've asked for help from my mailing list in the past six years. I got $1200 a few weeks ago, the geneticist has burned through that, and now he needs more. So sue me.....
Email from Pye: March 2010

He doesn't like those damn scientists does he? They keep giving him the wrong answers and he hates it! He goes from one scientist to another looking for the 'right answer.'


As for the arguments about the DNA test that said the Starchild carried an X and Y chromosome, that was carried out in late 1999 and has since been proved to be done by incompetents who arrived at a completely wrong answer.
Email from Pye: March 2010

Anyway, here we are 6 months after the last 'breaking news' from Lloyd Pye and 11 years since he first began selling the idea that the poor kid's skull was 'Starchild.' He refuses to name the lab or the scientist. The skull has no provenance. He's still selling the idea and refusing to accept any wrong answers. If he accepted the 1999 findings, would that undermine his business model? He has no other choice but to keep the 'starchild' as inconclusive. he's running two websites, touring the circuit and selling books and dvds...'starchild skull' is the only thing that helps Pye stand out from the pack. It's the only way to keep his show on the road.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I understand teeth are the best sources for DNA in these cases.
In your post did you say that a tooth was tested for DNA but the results were never released?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Interesting and compelling. Sadly I have a feeling this is yet another one of those amazing things, finds, discoveries, proofs, etc that are "right around the corner" and then get swept under the rug and are never heard about again.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky.....

I admire your patient & informative approach to this vexed topic of "Aliens & UFOs", inclusive of such bizarre material as the Pye skull.

As per that which I perceive to be the general direction of your post, I believe this is all just a "circus" that continues to be orchestrated by Pye, in order to derive attention & money.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Tribble
 
Dr David Sweet is a dentist specialising in...


Forensic DNA from teeth, bones and saliva; Human bitemark forensic evidence; Use of dental characteristics in human identification
Dr David Sweet

I expect the DNA was extracted from the teeth because it's fairly standard practice when analysing older skulls and it's Sweet's speciality. Check out his experience and qualifications. The man described by Pye as 'incompetent' in the email seems very competent. I could be mistaken, I think that's the last name Pye released in connection to Starchild. It's easy to see why he stopped.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The man described by Pye as 'incompetent' in the email seems very competent. I could be mistaken, I think that's the last name Pye released in connection to Starchild. It's easy to see why he stopped.


It looks like he claims the man was incompetent as he found zero evidence for anything but it being human!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 
I think it's possible that Pye thought he really had something all those years ago. He possibly saw the skull as fame and fortune and a ticket from Nowheresville.

Instead, he's covered miles of road with a box of books and CDs to sell. He patters out the same presentations to half-full town halls and retirement homes. Kinda soul-destroying after 10 odd years, I guess. I'm leaving this thread to itself now, I feel pretty guilty about laughing at the guy!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I'm new here, but wherever I look at things like these on forums, one thing always happens...We have believers, open minders and debunkers. I can understand believers and open minders, but debunkers are regularly implying that either:
1. It's a lie, and someone is crazy and seeking attention, or wants to be famous.
2. It's a hoax, and it's done for financial gain
3. Can't possibly be true because: no "scientific" proof or no "hard" evidence (like alien or a spaceship landing on white house lawn)
4. Can't be true because everyone knows we are only intelligent life form in the known and unknown universe.
5. Can't be true because even if there isn't scientific explanation for something, scientific speculation (could be this or that) always does the job...

How many recorded UFO reports exist? 30.000? 40.000?
In order to prove that aliens do not exist, debunker needs to disprove ALL of them!
In order to PROVE alien existence, believer needs to prove only ONE!
Since science didn't "debunk" ALL of them, and proofs of alien crafts are everywhere, why is it so unbelievable that Starchild skull could be real hybrid deal?
Do debunkers think that our science is perfect and we know everything there is to know about everything there is?
I would guess that all debunkers are atheists then? If not, could they please prove us (or prove me) beyond any doubt that "God" exist?
And finally, what are debunkers even doing in forums full of "crazies" who keep open mind about UFO's, aliens and all that nonsense?...Unless some of them are paid to do that?... Professional Debunkers!...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banes
How many recorded UFO reports exist? 30.000? 40.000?


Remember, one mans UFO with a alien pilot is anothers aircraft lights, or balloon with flashing leds.


In order to prove that aliens do not exist, debunker needs to disprove ALL of them!


Wrong, believers have to prove that they are alien in origin - why do you assume a UFO is alien in origin?


In order to PROVE alien existence, believer needs to prove only ONE!


Which they have so far been unable to prove to that any UFO is caused by aliens



Since science didn't "debunk" ALL of them, and proofs of alien crafts are everywhere,


Talk about jumping to a silly conclusion - where is there any proof of any UFO being a alien craft?


why is it so unbelievable that Starchild skull could be real hybrid deal?


You are jumping to the silly conclusion, not based in any fact, that:

1/ Aliens exist
2/ They have visited earth
3/ They are able to breed with humans
4/ The so called "starchild skull" is a result of one of these "aliens" breeding with a human

you also ignore the fact that the DNA from the skull shows both parents were human!


Do debunkers think that our science is perfect and we know everything there is to know about everything there is?


Care to show us a debunker that has claimed that?

"crazies" who keep open mind about UFO's, aliens and all that nonsense?...


Here is where you are wrong again, the "crazies" do not have a open mind, they insist the skull is half alien!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


LLoyd Pye is a very honest guy and he will publish the results like he has always done so far. He makes very little money out of the skull, and if he does, he uses it to test it.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


To prove to who? You? The science? The mighty "Debunkers"?
Are you saying that UFO's, all of them are US secret saucer-shaped planes? Or Russian? Or some still unknown race of humans that are hi-tech and hiding from us? And you can prove any of that?

How many beliefs were there through history that weren't based on facts or can't be proven? Flat Earth, God, Devil, Jesus, Resurrection, Heaven and Hell, JFK, 9/11, Obama's birthplace...

And how many times scientists and officials gave deliberate misconceptions, half-truths and blatant lies? Like: Cancer, 9/11, Iraq WMD's, Bird and Swine flu, Gulf seafood safe to eat now, new bull "superbug" world pandemics possibility, etc, etc, etc? Last scientific reports I red said that Gulf sea-food is safe and that there is no problem in eating it. Would you eat that food and let your family eat it? Your science says it's safe! Your science also said that they made Swine flu vaccine within one month after it was discovered!!


And what if they believe the skull is alien? One billion people in the World insists God is real! Did you debunk them? Or other billion Muslims? Or any other World religion? Do debunkers feel such uncontrollable urge to prove them stupid, liars, wrong, or maybe they try to prove they are smarter than believers? I have utmost respect for believers because they are the people with inquisitive minds! That kind of people leeds humanity forward. Even if they are completely wrong, they still ask what, where, when and why. Debunkers just read official, filtered reports and try to use them to "debunk" believers.
Just leave the people alone...Everyone has the right to believe in whatever he wants...Or you just can't do that...They'll fire you and find another debunker!...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Banes
 


Hey Banes.....

Ease up.....

It's only your first day.....

You'll burn out!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Banes
 


Hey Banes,

Welcome to ATS.

Being as that you are new here you probably haven't seen this video from Dr. Tyson yet:

mcooki.es...

I believe he sums it up best for most of us realists, scientists and yes "debunkers".

Maintain a real life outlook, grounded in truth, not "profit oriented" fantasy and I believe you will see the light of said reality!

73's,
Tom




top topics



 
161
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join