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: 7
161
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


I don't see how you can a Prelimary result for such a thing, it's either
a result or not a result.

And who is doing testing ?
And who is verfying those test results ?

If it's just a dude in lab coat in a garage somewhere, it's doesn't really
qualify as a result.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
That's precisely wrong. Many experts have examined the skull, compared to Progeria, and found dozens of irregularities. Just because you *think* a shabby photograph of one Progeria child resembles a photograph of the starchild skull, that doesn't mean that real experts have conducted real examinations which contradict your "KNOWN" conclusions.

Basically, Progeria and Hydrocephaly produce dramatically irregularly shaped skulls, whereas the Starchild skull is symmetrically perfect, and shows no signs of cranial expansion - the only reason people came to these conclusions is based on the observation that the skull is larger than typical, and thinner. Both of these explanations fail to stand up to further scrutiny, hence, it is not progeria nor hydrocephaly.

The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.

Which experts?
I never made any definitive remarks, just that the DNA test was human and it appears to be Progeria.
As Maybe maybe not pointed out earlier in the thread, they share various characteristics.


- Lack of frontal sinuses

- Abnormal bone composition

- Large, shallow orbits

Not all cases of progeria have the exact same shape, and I think it's a much more valid argument than "it's an alien skull"
Don't you?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.

BOOM!


Let me begin debunking your debunking by asking what if they can tell if DNA is damaged or mutated and by process of elimination pretty much erases those possibilities off the list.

BOOM!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


I think the strength of the skull, the symmetry of the skull, the strange fibers found in it, the different elemental composition, the lack of mutation signatures, and the strange DNA results, when looked at as a whole, make it very difficult to dismiss as a simple case of Progeria or Hydrocephaly.

I hate calling the thing an "alien", I just don't think the above explanations are satisfactory.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


I think the strength of the skull, the symmetry of the skull, the strange fibers found in it, the different elemental composition, the lack of mutation signatures, and the strange DNA results, when looked at as a whole, make it very difficult to dismiss as a simple case of Progeria or Hydrocephaly.

I hate calling the thing an "alien", I just don't think the above explanations are satisfactory.

You keep throwing out things I've never heard of.
Strange fibers?
Different elemental composition?
Can I please see some links? It sounds rather interesting if true.
I also try to stray away from calling things "alien", hence my skepticism to this long debated skull.
But those DNA tests came back human, specifically native, obviously the owner didn't like those results, so had it tested more until he got inconclusive, which he then paraded around like it was Alien.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.

There's no way to provide "proof that a percentage of the DNA in the bone is not from Earth (Alien)." The only place in the universe that DNA is known to exist is earth.

You Starchild folks are silly.


Heh , soooo if finding it to have some giraffe DNA or ant DNA or of some unidentified species DNA wouldn't be just as remarkable ?????? Better think about what you just said. I don't have any proof of anything or am I on the Starchild bandwagon. But reading your post, you pretty much state that by thinking it's "alien" DNA makes someone 'silly', but if it's hybrid with a known or unidentified species it's pretty ho hum , nothing to see here. Quite unremarkable. Where do you live? You see ant-people, lizard-people walking around ?? Seems you belong in the same group of "silly" people.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiju666

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.

BOOM!


Let me begin debunking your debunking by asking what if they can tell if DNA is damaged or mutated and by process of elimination pretty much erases those possibilities off the list.

BOOM!


Extraterrestrial DNA is not even on the list, any more than fairy or demon DNA is on the list. The list only has real stuff on it. All DNA in all organisms alive today is a product of mutation, so that trick doesn't work.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiju666

Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.

There's no way to provide "proof that a percentage of the DNA in the bone is not from Earth (Alien)." The only place in the universe that DNA is known to exist is earth.

You Starchild folks are silly.


Heh , soooo if finding it to have some giraffe DNA or ant DNA or of some unidentified species DNA wouldn't be just as remarkable ?????? Better think about what you just said. I don't have any proof of anything or am I on the Starchild bandwagon. But reading your post, you pretty much state that by thinking it's "alien" DNA makes someone 'silly', but if it's hybrid with a known or unidentified species it's pretty ho hum , nothing to see here. Quite unremarkable. Where do you live? You see ant-people, lizard-people walking around ?? Seems you belong in the same group of "silly" people.

No, it really wouldn't.
We share DNA with a virus, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with aliens.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by Kaiju666

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.

BOOM!


Let me begin debunking your debunking by asking what if they can tell if DNA is damaged or mutated and by process of elimination pretty much erases those possibilities off the list.

BOOM!


Extraterrestrial DNA is not even on the list, any more than fairy or demon DNA is on the list. The list only has real stuff on it. All DNA in all organisms alive today is a product of mutation, so that trick doesn't work.


The only 'trick' is unto yourself to let yourself believe you are all knowing and always right on everything and only your 'beliefs' are the 1 and only truth.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiju666

Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.

There's no way to provide "proof that a percentage of the DNA in the bone is not from Earth (Alien)." The only place in the universe that DNA is known to exist is earth.

You Starchild folks are silly.


Heh , soooo if finding it to have some giraffe DNA or ant DNA or of some unidentified species DNA wouldn't be just as remarkable ?????? Better think about what you just said. I don't have any proof of anything or am I on the Starchild bandwagon. But reading your post, you pretty much state that by thinking it's "alien" DNA makes someone 'silly', but if it's hybrid with a known or unidentified species it's pretty ho hum , nothing to see here. Quite unremarkable. Where do you live? You see ant-people, lizard-people walking around ?? Seems you belong in the same group of "silly" people.


It's remarkable in the sense of being worth mentioning, but the believer argument here is clearly that we're dealing with something extraterrestrial. I'm saying there's no reason to think that, because there isn't. If you believe the skull is from an ET and your proof is how wierd the DNA is, then yes, that is a silly belief and a silly crusade. Further sillyness is to think that because I don't see lizard-people where I live, then that means that we should believe that the skull comes from an ET. You put that little disclaimer about not really believing for the sake of avoiding the band wagon, but then what is your argument? Aren't we talking about the starchild skull?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to [post by Tempest333
 


Where do you get that Earth Life Forms have 253 chromosomes????

Humans have 46. Chimps have 48.

I'd guess you means genes, but we have only 25,000 of those. Which still falls short of your number.

You can have more than normal genes with duplicates and repeats.

www.genome.gov...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
There is a huge difference between Lloyd Pye's experts and real experts.

Anyone, truly anyone, who a few days of training, can do carbon dating, use a scanning electron microscope, take an xray, and purify DNA.

The difference between a real expert doing this and "experts" (who shall not be named) is that a real expert will balance the evidence. According to Pye, his "expert" who did the DNA analysis concluded that it could be extraterrestrial.

If you give a sample to a real biotechnician or genetic engineer without telling them what it's about, they will conclude that the differences are mutations.

From what I've heard only DNA on the pico- (trillionth) gram is recovered. Maybe the "sample" that was used by the "expert" to draw conclusions from was "specifically selected" to falsify evidence and conclusions.


Suppose a chain of DNA has 1000 kilobases, 9950 of those are normal, 50 are new. The "expert" could have taken 100 kilobases with the 50 nonnormal nucleotides and say that this skull is 50% nonhuman.





Until I read a well documented and researched paper from this guy, I will conclude this starchild skull to be the skull of a human being with a congenital disorder.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiju666
The only 'trick' is unto yourself to let yourself believe you are all knowing and always right on everything and only your 'beliefs' are the 1 and only truth.


Ah, yes, the classic appeal to the general epistemological weakness of personal belief. Good one. I guess no one is right about anything, ever, and everyone's beliefs are just as valid. Now that that's settled we better just give up on finding anything out then, right?

Doesn't this appeal to the weakness of personal belief apply to your beliefs to? And since we're not five years old, don't we all already know this? Isn't the agenda, then, to use reason and evidence to try to sort out the truth? Or is it that whenever anyone makes an argument, we should remind them that no one really knows anything?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this, it really is NOT fully human but is it Alien? Do we have any ET dna to match ? NO we do not that is an assumption even though it resembles the popularized greys it could be something else? What would be i have no idea. But if you ask me what I think then i would say it appears to be a frey aliens skull. If we could just get our hands on a dead grey that would be swell. Until then it will never be certain.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unknown Soldier]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Because someone popping black eyeballs into totally pale skinned "reproduction" doesn't smell of bs AT ALL.

Did they look on the loci for skin colour and figure out that the skin was creepy white? Did they look and find the eye colour loci to determine this recreation?

I'd like to see what this person looked like with meso-american skin tone and human like eyes and some hair. Somehow, I think it'd be a different picture.

One more sad, and less cosmic.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


The use of the word "alien" in the context of human DNA might be very misleading.

The term quite likely didn't mean to suggest that the segments found were not of this Earth - they would suggest that some segments in our DNA are not fully from Humans. And this is correct.

Before that blows your mind - viruses can and have inserted parts of themselves into the human genome. The viral "family" of Epstein-Barr, CMV, Herpes, has segments that have been found to be inserted into our species DNA.

Therefore those segments are "alien." Not extra-planetary.



As to an "atomic element" in human base pairs - everything you are is created from local materials. The atoms in your body come for the environment surrounding you. How do you suppose ti would be possible for an atom to exist only in DNA, when your DNA starts out only as one single set of genes and then creates billions and billions of copies of itself , and then replaces those through out all your life? Where do you suppose the base material for that "atomic element" is coming from?


[edit on 2010/8/10 by Aeons]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
the video said they discovered new base pairs? lol seriously doubt that... but they gloss over that in the video.. also, i thought they found it had an x and a y chromosome... meaning it had two earthly parents


[edit on 11-8-2010 by 2012DragonSlayer]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 





If it truly was of alien origin, i think we'd be looking into the eyesockets of an entirely different skull in terms of its physiology, size, shape, proportions, features, and the overall essence of its fundamental composition. But looking at this "star child"skull, i see far too much of a resemblance to Earthly skulls.. not something i would expect from a species which evolved not only on a different planet, but a completely different solar system, perhaps even galaxy.


LOL! I see we have an expert in the fundamental composition of alien skulls here! It must have taken you lifetimes to acquire the knowledge of all the alien species in every galaxy in order to make the determination that this skull can only be human...

You did hear Dye say they believe this skull is part alien AND part human, right?



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Humm did anyone catch this in the video where it talked about how they determined that it was an adult's skull because the teeth that was in it was fully rooted?

A bit of searching on the web, I found in wiki




The skull is abnormal in several respects. A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age.[5] However, the volume of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses.[4] The back of the skull is flattened. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[6]


Now that says that it was a child's skull. The source of that is from

web.archive.org...
www.starchildproject.com...

From his own website.

Why is there this contradiction????

Sorry there is a problem posting the link properly here. If you look at the wiki article and scroll down, its the 5th citation.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 11-8-2010 by balon0]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Haven't they ever DNA tested this skull prior to 2010? I mean, if it was found in the 1930's and DNA testing has been around for decades, why is this something that is just now being done?



new topics

top topics



 
161
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join