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.

 

are you a alien half breed? best not let them get your DNA

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I think the deal quite possibly is that white people and asians have alien blood lines.
The elites are the ones that basically took control early on. They are tied to the planet more than those who are non-elites as they are just 'passing through' you might say. Hence they are possibly interest with those of 'unique' dna material.
Red-heads, blondes etc are said by some to be of unknown origin compared to the blacks (earth ancestry), hence why there's a drive from NASA and China to reach for the stars (again)...




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Hey again.

Okay - first up, glad to see that the confrontational tone has lessened. Thanks for that.
It's better to just talk about it than start calling each other names.

So in response to the comments/ videos you posted. Not had time to watch those videos yet, will give them a go, but I honestly prefer to read books than watch videos. It's a culture-gap thing. When I was a teen the internet was brand new and I didn't get too involved with it; now I get annoyed by the amount of crap getting posted on youtube and claimed as gospel by mini-armies of sock puppets.


educate yourself

It is a legitimate possibility that life on Earth may have been seeded. EVOLUTION could have created the aliens. Or a previous intervention, carried out on their progenitors by an evolved species. Or by their predecessors predecessors, etc etc up to around several billion years ago. I don't disagree with evolution as a general explanation of how life evolves - just that it doesn't strictly apply to the origins of the modern human race.


No, there's no science backing it and there's no logical reason for it. I said it once ill say it again, where did life first originate if aliens evolved from seeded aliens being seeded by other aliens in a ridiculous loop that makes no sense. At some point you to stop and say ok at this point these aliens evolved naturally on their own planet which then led to them making us.

But when you think in that way, you can just make the more logical assertion that we ourselves evolved naturally as the theory of evolution dictates and accept that life began here - not on another planet. Besides, the theory of evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, but only the diversity of how life evolves. Abiogenesis explains how life came about on this planet and does not require a hand in its beginnings. Nothing legitimate about your theory at all.

BTW, do you actually think aliens and humans are now being hybridised to the extent depicted in stories where reptilian and grey aliens are breading with us and taking babies from pregnant mothers?




In reverse order -

1) No, don't subscribe to the reptilian/ greys abducting babies stuff, which my gut tells me is a 'sinister plot' to deflect attention from the real UFO & extraterrestrial / interdimensional entity question.

2) I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My thoughts on the reality of extraterrestrial/ interdimensional entities stem from the mythological heritage of the planet - an understanding of several ancient religious texts and a reinterpretation of some of the details, in light of a more 'enlightened' (technologically aware) point of view. I don't buy evolution AS IT APPLIES TO THE HUMAN RACE. In general, yes I understand it as a theory which makes most sense in terms of how it generally applies to the natural world. Experiments with butterflies have proven natural selection at work, so I'd be a fool to deny it. Which I don't.



There is a world of difference between the timelines involved in a) the standard projection of evolution, as it applies to the uprising of the modern human race, and b) the timelines involved in taking a subset from a particular genus and creating a hybrid - or artificially advanced - race (humanity).

I see the second timeline in operation on this planet, when it comes to our own emergence as an intelligent and near-CIVILISED society.

Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolutionary theory (Darwin's partner) had doubts about the theory of evolution being strictly applied to the human race - he allowed Darwin to take the full public 'celebrity status' arising from the discovery, partly as a result of these doubts.

There is no way to explain the massive cerebral capacity (ability to think) and increased brain size seen in modern man. Which complex scenarios could have been faced by our predecessors, that could possibly have laid such a demand at the door of evolution?

Wallace is quoted as saying:


"An instrument [the human brain] has been developed in advance of the needs of its possesor."


Despite this apparent wonder of evolution, the female birth canal was not sufficiently evolved to allow for a straightforwards birthing process - the large cranium of a baby human is evidence of over-engineering. There is no way that evolution would favour a gene for large cranial capacity (large brains) and yet not adapt the birth canal/ skeletal system of the female of the species to cope with that development.

Evolution in general is a LONG process.

Visual analogy:

Evolution to immediate predecessors of Homo Sapiens (Homo Erectus) from ancient progenitors (ape-like) =

************************************************************************ (6 million years)


'Evolution' (our ability to find apparent evidence of evolution) to modern man from Homo Erectus =

*** (250,000 years)


Which (speculatively) should have rationally taken =

************************************ (3 million years)



To quote Alan F Alford (from whose work I have developed some of these points) in 'Gods of the New Millenium',


"We are not supposed to have become intelligent overnight, and evolution is supposed to be very slow. Therefore, if we go back one or two million years, we might expect to find a semi-intelligent being, using his newly found abilities to experiment with primitive writing, basic art, and simple multiplication. But there is nothing. Without exception, all of the evidence shows that man continued to use the most basic stone tools for 6 million years, despite his increasing cranial capacity. This is very strange and highly contradictory. We deserve a better explanation."



So, back to my thoughts and beliefs around the alien question, and (some as yet unclarified form of) interventionism in the 'evolution of man'.

All of the above, along with several phenomenal and (imho) predominantly unsatisfactorily explained ancient architectural anomalies; modern indicators of conspiratorial cover-up perpetrated by the governments of the world - and of course the off-world indicators of artificiality (on massive scales) in our very own solar system... All of these things (and undoubtedly more that I can't recall at this moment in time) make me severely question the blinkered, and - recently somewhat panicked - insistence on an earth-centric model as propagated by the mainstream academic world.

A couple of academic champions (such as Dawkins) have spearheaded the subtle campaign to get all the mysteries and anomalies regarding our origins smoothed over, filled in or obfuscated. Much of this has been done at least partly in order to prove religion a load of hocum, in the name of materialistic progression.

Unfortunately for them, the heated and sometimes aggressive efforts they have made in this regard have led to a lot of people asking serious questions about the legitimacy of those mainstream models - and not necessarily in order to support the religious perspective the mainstream have worked so hard to denigrate.

Yes, religious fundamentalism can be extremely damaging under certain circumstances. No, I am not a religious fundamentalist. Do I believe the universe can be fully understood by man? No. Not in a million years or so at least. How far along are we in terms of being to reverse engineer our amazing brains? Therefore, I object to the presumptive arrogance we see everywhere in the academic world, that we already know the truth of our origins.

And I will continue to research and investigate the alternatives, because like Alford, I think we deserve a better explanation.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Incidentally, I should have directly addressed this point made by Andre:


But when you think in that way, you can just make the more logical assertion that we ourselves evolved naturally as the theory of evolution dictates and accept that life began here


My simple response to this is, quite simply: "No, I don't"

Why? Because that's a cop-out. Because I see too many anomalies in the mainstream model. Because there are worldwide mythological constructs which share a remarkable number of details - too many to dismiss it all as 'chance', and we can't dismiss them as 'fairy stories'. The ancients weren't stupid, simply (apparently) technologically unadvanced (though there's a few good examples to suggest they weren't as techno-ignorant as we're led to believe). To say that they'd spend so much time regaling the 'gods' if there had never been any physical contact between them - particularly in the face of the Sumerian cyliinder seals, the Egyptian hieroglyphs Middle and South American Bas Reliefs and so forth; it just doesn't stack up.

There's hundreds of amazing examples of consistencies between civilised nations around the world, and at some point I plan to make a thread (or write a book), "a la Sitchin", but with an interdimensional flavour (to account for the very real experiences of mystics and shamans/ priests throughout the ages). Think of it as a cross between Stargate and The Exorcist.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the back and forth on the thread, and will be back on the ATS scene (actively) at some point in the New Year - though I may be lurking here and there in the meantime. Thanks to all who have contributed and made this an interesting exercise! My lovely wife is complaining that I'm spending too much time on these threads, and Christmas is but a week away! Have a good one, no matter your race, colour or creed.

God Bless,

Regards, Fly.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 




Hybrids can be created from any creature which shares a DNA type structure in theory


Yes, exactly. You're then saying aliens may share our DNA to a degree that would let a hybridisation occur. That's impossible. The evolution of DNA itself came about on this planet by a natural process that must be and would be different on every planet - the chemical reactions that caused molecules to form must differ on every planet. The fact you don't know that shows how much you don't know.

Sorry Andre18, but you clearly know less about this topic than you think.

There is the hypothesis of panspermia which is the idea that life exists throughout the universe and may be distributed by asteroids etc. See en.wikipedia.org... and the internet encyclopaedia of science. There is also the related hypothesis of exogenesis where life originated outside earth. These are serious scientific hypotheses not crackpot ideas.

Equally fascinating is the the hypothesis proposed by Francis Crick (who co-discovered DNA) and Leslie Orgel called directed panspermia. The theory goes that as life may be unlikely to have reached here by chance that organisms may have been transmitted here deliberately by intelligent being on another planet.

Basically the hypothesis that life originated on earth by chance natural processes in a primordial soup is also just a hypothesis too. Even if it can be shown that DNA based life could originate in a primordial soup in a manner like that (which is unproven so far) it could have happened anywhere in the universe(s) with the right conditions and then been seeded (deliberately or not) to other worlds.

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 

NO i dont. Because, drum rol me plz..... there is enough scientific understanding of the evolution of man that there is no doubt in the science community how we came to be - fun fact: there are no missing links.

There is no need to imply a hand in our evolution in order for man to currently be around, for you to imply there is, means you know nothing of biology or evolution - how bout you go ask your relatives where man came from and you'll find you entire belief in aliens will go out the window.

In fact, Homo sapiens are one of the species where how it evolved is difficult to explain and there is lots of doubt in the scientific community which is why entire conferences have been held to look at the topic. For example if humans evolved on the African savannah why are they hairless? If it was an advantage to be hairless then Savannah mammals would all be that way and they aren't. Look at the problems we get with sun-burn. Also bipedalism is difficult to explain as there are many disadvantages including problems for the back, knees and internal organs. It is a distinct advantage to be able to use your fore-legs (arms) when you need to run fast. That is very different to saying we were created by an alien race of course.

However, just because we are reasonably adapted to earth does not mean that some of these unusual traits in humans which are awkward to explain may be a result of alien intervention. That was not me saying that is what I believe but it is entirely possible... It may have escaped your notice but most descriptions of aliens seem to be mainly of bipedal, hairless, large headed humanoids which are the very things that set Homo sapiens apart.

Originally posted by andre18
Fact of reality - there are no alien species, no legitimate hybrid lines. You're talking make believe bs. How bout you base your alien hybrid claim on some facts - where are those alien human hybrid remains in museums? Stop lying to yourself and face reality.

How can you state a massive hypothesis like 'there are no alien species' then say the quote below!

Originally posted by andre18

I don't think you can really argue against that.

Well i just did, besides, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I don't care if it's some random making a hypothetical but when you make the claim over a scientific theory you have to show the evidence backing the claim.
edit on 17-12-2010 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

Of course there may be alien species. Your limited knowledge as a person extends as far as your own experience. Humanity has little real experience of what lies beyond our atmosphere let alone in the billions of Galaxies and possible parallel realities. It looks to me like it is you who might be lying to yourself. The truth is - you don't know. Until you become party to the truth about ET contact or are able to explore the entire universe in the search for life try showing a bit of humility about how much you know. You're claim to know that 'there are no alien species' could easily come back to bite you on the ass... THINK ABOUT IT!
edit on 19-12-2010 by Pimander because: Typo



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Thanks for the support Pimander! I have to say, it never fails to stagger me how many people in this world are willing to get so angry about the possibilities of life elsewhere, the possibility that life here isn't quite as straightforward as they've been led to believe, and the fact that when a person relates an experience which seems 'bizarre' from their perspective, well then it simply must be a load of BS, right?

The arguments against Panspermia and alien/ human hybrids offered by Andre 18 are quite clearly inadequate for his intended purposes, and I note that he hasn't replied to my last few posts. Perhaps he's off doing something else, if so that's fair enough, but until any explanation is forthcoming then this lack of response speaks volumes...

Alan F Alford, the author I referenced above, revised many of his original 'ancient astronaut' theories between 1996 (the release of his monumental "Gods of the New Millenium") and 2000, when he wrote a new foreword to the reprints of that book. Some - including myself - have found his U-turn intriguing - and even suspicious (now essentially labeling 'symbolic' what he had defined as literal 'flesh & blood gods'). Despite the ('alleged') revisions to his personal beliefs, he maintains that the first six chapters of GOTNM still hold true for him. Those chapters address the evolutionary anomalies (and historical context, development of civilisation etc) which cause him to label Homo Sapiens an 'evolutionary misfit'. Well worth a read, definitely.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
DNA evidence found in this recent video, I found very interesting:

www.disclose.tv...

Some guy who had a pubic hair of one "alien hybrid" who he said was a highly attractive blonde with big eyes who he encountered at his bed at 7am he had it sent to a DNA lab and it got interesting results.

Quote from the doc:
"the analysis confirmed the hair came from someone who was biologically close to normal human genetics, but of an unusual racial type - a rare chinese mongoloid type - one of the rarest human lineages known, that lies further from the human mainstream than any other except African pygmies and aboriginals. There was a strange anomaly of it being blonde to clear instead of black, as would be expect from the asian type mitochondrial DNA. The most likely donor would be a tall blonde female who does not need much color in her hair or skin as a form of protection against the sun pehaps because she doesn't require it." and passed a light detector test, some interesting "scientific" evidence.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Pimander
 

Thanks for the support Pimander! I have to say, it never fails to stagger me how many people in this world are willing to get so angry about the possibilities of life elsewhere, the possibility that life here isn't quite as straightforward as they've been led to believe, and the fact that when a person relates an experience which seems 'bizarre' from their perspective, well then it simply must be a load of BS, right?

Andre irritated me by pretending to be a subject matter expert. Now and again I just can't resist bursting peoples bubble like that lol. The support was warranted so don't mention it.

The kind of reaction you talk about is well understood. You should familiarise yourself with the SCEPCOP website. We call these people pseudosceptics. A pseudosceptic is somebody claiming to be a sceptic but is really only sceptical about anything which strays outside the status quo.


"The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are: 1. Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory). 2. The assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena). 3. The obfuscation of facts. 4. The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions. 5. Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change. 6. Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule. 7. Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance. 8. Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts". 9. Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories. 10. Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter."
See Characteristic behaviours of pseudosceptics versus true sceptics

It would not surprise me if we don't get a response. It wouldn't be the first time a pseudosceptic suddenly lost their enthusiasm when out of their depth. It would surprise me if he admits that he was wrong though lol.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Pimander
 

Alan F Alford, the author I referenced above, revised many of his original 'ancient astronaut' theories between 1996 (the release of his monumental "Gods of the New Millenium") and 2000, when he wrote a new foreword to the reprints of that book. Some - including myself - have found his U-turn intriguing - and even suspicious (now essentially labeling 'symbolic' what he had defined as literal 'flesh & blood gods'). Despite the ('alleged') revisions to his personal beliefs, he maintains that the first six chapters of GOTNM still hold true for him. Those chapters address the evolutionary anomalies (and historical context, development of civilisation etc) which cause him to label Homo Sapiens an 'evolutionary misfit'. Well worth a read, definitely.

I did meet Alan a few years ago at a conference in Stoke, England. I'm glad you reminded me of his work as he had some good references that I didn't follow up.

There are, of course, some fascinating anomalies in both the history of civilisation and theories about the evolution of Homo sapiens. In terms of Occam's Razor the simplest explanation seems to be an alien intervention hypothesis. It's not as simple as that unfortunately. You could explain practically anything using an intervention hypothesis. So if we are to be scientific we have to use other 'theory selecting' methods by testing the hypothesis. Tough enough task made even tougher by pseudosceptical resistance to new ideas. The so called 'debunking/scepticism' would have kept us believing in a flat earth. Fortunately free thinkers came forward with new ideas that challenged and explained anomalies better. Many of them were persecuted for their beliefs and that is still the case today.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecann
DNA evidence found in this recent video, I found very interesting:

www.disclose.tv...

Some guy who had a pubic hair of one "alien hybrid" who he said was a highly attractive blonde with big eyes who he encountered at his bed at 7am he had it sent to a DNA lab and it got interesting results.

Quote from the doc:
"the analysis confirmed the hair came from someone who was biologically close to normal human genetics, but of an unusual racial type - a rare chinese mongoloid type - one of the rarest human lineages known, that lies further from the human mainstream than any other except African pygmies and aboriginals. There was a strange anomaly of it being blonde to clear instead of black, as would be expect from the asian type mitochondrial DNA. The most likely donor would be a tall blonde female who does not need much color in her hair or skin as a form of protection against the sun pehaps because she doesn't require it." and passed a light detector test, some interesting "scientific" evidence.

The guy wrote a book called Hair of the Alien. It was interesting but not your smoking gun I'm afraid. The hair had DNA of a human type (the alien may have been a human ET though) albeit of an unusual lineage. Lie detector tests can be beaten if you are trained how to do it. Even if you accept the lie test as valid it still only proves that he believes that is what happened not that it definitely happened.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: buddha

If I was an alien,I'd hope I'd be Half Saiyan so I could go Super Saiyan.Every one knows not to mess with a Super Saiyan.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
One time, several years ago, may it have been possible between the range of 2-3 years before my 40th birthday, I had been advised to visit the doctors because of my hereditery disease risk. What they had told to this day that day, has stuck with me ever since then. They had to do a genetic scan of my genetics, and said they had seen things what they had never seen before. Sometimes I do wonder what they were. When I read the original post, my eyes started to water because of my inner soul knowing what was true. Thank you OP ,you bring hope to a kindred soul. My friends always said to me , John, you could have been possible have some unknown (sometimes they said alien) DNA in you - we know what happened to your father.
edit on 2-11-2015 by Anteep because: extra story



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Anteep

You don't have any alien DNA, and if you want to know what doctors were referring to, ask, or ask your current doctor (if different) to tell you.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: buddha

Has anyone else experienced sudden physical signs of "attack"..I keep experiencing spells while in certain areas where my heart beats out of control..I feel like I'm about to pass out..its not ptsd or an anxiety attack. I know i am emf sensitive so the thought did cross my mind that this could be somehow related



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I had my dna tested, turns out I'm like 1% native american

that was cool



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
We are smarter. And we never let them have our DNA.


originally posted by: Serizawa
If anything the royal families have the hybrid DNA, none of us.....Why would they wanna kill their own? Ever heard of royal bloodlines?.....The only reason they would collect DNA is to clone.


Ah but you're assuming there is only one type of alien here.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: annienomus
a reply to: buddha

Has anyone else experienced sudden physical signs of "attack"..I keep experiencing spells while in certain areas where my heart beats out of control..I feel like I'm about to pass out..its not ptsd or an anxiety attack. I know i am emf sensitive so the thought did cross my mind that this could be somehow related

I would strongly suggest you speak to your doctor about this as soon as possible. Arrhythmia can be indicative of serious problems that, if left untreated, may be fatal.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join