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.

 

DNA Proof that the Starchild skull is alien

page: 10
160
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Ive said it before PYEs previous results are peer reviewed at comic con....have a legitimate lab test the skull, not the guy who owns the lab who also owns the books the skull the websites and prolly the movie one day............


Yes Pye does tend to leap to unsubstantiated conclusions...........a few years ago Pye popped up on New Zealand breakfast tv and he stated that DNA test showed that the mother was human and the father was not! DNA test results at the time could not analyse DNA from the father.....Pye takes that to mean that the father was not human........even though it meant nothing of the sort!


The biggest red flag is that Pye named the skull "The Starchild" even before he subjected the skull to any tests.
It's become a type of religious icon for Pye.
All tests that say that the skull is human are dismissed by Pye as being incorrect.......so he has his own....secret hush hush scientist to conduct his own DNA tests........I smell a lot of BS.......and it all is coming from Pye!


Not true. He very specifically stated that his tests were all inconclusive and proved that the ONLY test that was run that said it was 100% human was conducted improperly rendering the results useless. They couldn't test the DNA properly with the equipment that they had... and so that meant the result was not true. You also ignore the fact that most places refuse to test it because of it's controversial potential. The people he got to conduct his tests have no relation to Mr. Pye.... So that is also an untrue statement.

Just saying, let the facts speak for themselves. Let him publish the results in a medical journal and submit them for peer review. If what he's saying is true, this will prove it. As it stands, he is claiming that the mtDNA does not match any species known on the planet, not even consistent with genetic mutation. Also, there is a lot of research into the area of Genetic Mutations that prove that skull was not "deformed" but naturally in this condition.

To be clear, Mr. Pye clearly said that the DNA results were shocking to him because at the time the evidence was leaning towards the fact that it was human. This was a result of them only testing a small series of base pairs that all were common in humans. There were strings of about 230 base pairs that weren't found in humans, but the rest at the time of the smaller test, were commonly human. This rendered the test inconclusive because there wasn't enough basepairs to know for sure, this could of been a heavily defected human at the time of the original accurate test.

There is no nuDNA found in the skull. It's all been degraded beyond testing ability. The team that originally tested the Skull claimed to test the nuDNA and the result was 100% human. The problem though, is that no nuDNA survived the erosion and aging process. mtDNA is a lot more resilliant, and even if it came out to be 100% human, that still wouldn't have said that the father was indeed human... It just would of meant that the mystery would be left a mystery.

So they tested the rest of the mtDNA, and apparently, according to the Pye, it has nearly 1,000 differences in it's base pairs, putting it way to high to even be "Deformation" as the highest variants, again... according to Pye, are around 120. This is absolutely conclusive, if what he is saying in actually true.... Which it most likely is, because Pye has never been caught to be one who is a Liar, AFAIK.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Not true. He very specifically stated that his tests were all inconclusive and proved that the ONLY test that was run that said it was 100% human was conducted improperly rendering the results useless. The people he got to conduct his tests have no relation to Mr. Pye.... So that is also an untrue statement.



Hang on......what's not true?

That he went on New Zealand tv and said that the father was not human?
I'll try and find the You tube clip of the broadcast if you want!

As for the "people " conducting the latest tests........since they are anonymous...... how do you know what relationship with Pye..........in any case my point was Pye is notorious for making unsubstantiated claims ......so it's not too far of a leap that he is spouting more BS about the latest "findings".



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Laokin

Not true. He very specifically stated that his tests were all inconclusive and proved that the ONLY test that was run that said it was 100% human was conducted improperly rendering the results useless. The people he got to conduct his tests have no relation to Mr. Pye.... So that is also an untrue statement.



Hang on......what's not true?

That he went on New Zealand tv and said that the father was not human?
I'll try and find the You tube clip of the broadcast if you want!

As for the "people " conducting the latest tests........since they are anonymous...... how do you know what relationship with Pye..........in any case my point was Pye is notorious for making unsubstantiated claims ......so it's not too far of a leap that he is spouting more BS about the latest "findings".


I've seen literally dozens of seminars and have actually met Mr. Pye. I have never heard him say anything other than it is his belief that the father is possibly alien, he never said it was a fact. There is a huge difference between those two statements. And again, they were NOT able to secure any nuclear DNA from the skull. The original team at the university has older technology and that was believed to be the reason they couldn't obtain the nuclear DNA. Yet the results they published stated that the Nuclear DNA tested positive as human. This was impossible as there was no nuclear DNA for them to test. This was corroborated by two other DNA testing firms that are NOT anonymous. Which factually makes the first test false.

The second test was a small manual mtDNA test. Done the old fashioned way, which would literally take nearly a decade to completely map all the DNA base pairs. In the sample test they did, the results proved that it contained human and non human DNA, but the varying base pairs could have been the result of deformation as there was not enough of them to come to a conclussion that it was not human.

He then went on a tour of the world giving seminars to explain this entire process looking for funding so he could afford to use a more sophisticated machine (that there are only a handful of in the world) to map the entirety of the mtDNA.

It appears he got the chance to run a test at a bigger sample rate... which conclusively proves that the mtDNA isn't all human, but shares some human commonalities. There is nothing here up until this point that claimed to be a 100% fact in support that it wasn't human.

Now that he is making the claim, allow him the due process of proving it's accurate.

That is all. And again, he didn't make the claim that it's from space... that is just his personal belief. The DNA can prove this, however, if it doesn't match any known species on the planet.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoSphere

I saw the special regarding this. The Mitochondrial DNA is entirely normal, and shows that the starchild 100% has a human mother. If the Mitochondrial DNA is as you say it is, then it's MOTHER is alien. But since it's normal, neither is. I believe your article is likely hoaxed. Especially since the "earth shattering," news about the StarChild is brought to you by the one and only StarChild website.. where they want you to buy all their t-shirts and mugs.


edit on 2-6-2011 by ErgoSphere because: (no reason given)


Yeah, the mother's DNA has been confirmed as human years ago............so Pye was on a mission to show that the father might be non human..............now Pye's DNA "findings" indicate non human DNA from the maternal line............sounds like more Pye BS!

edit on 4-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

I've seen literally dozens of seminars and have actually met Mr. Pye. I have never heard him say anything other than it is his belief that the father is possibly alien, he never said it was a fact. There is a huge difference between those two statements.


Okay here's the New Zealand clip.

www.youtube.com...

@ 3:19 Pye says: "We have DNA tests that established that its mother was human and father was not"



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 

LOl
and you are who in Pyes organisation?


Our geneticist is confident that complete confirmation will unfold over the following months as the Starchild Skull’s entire genome is recovered using advanced sequencing technology. Ultimately, he will be able to formally announce that he has absolute, ironclad proof that a significant part of the Starchild's genome cannot be found on Earth.


HIS geneticist is who? and publishing where in which peer review? subjected to independent review when?
Finding unknown DNA strands doesnt make it et, it just makes it unknown......



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
HIS geneticist is who? and publishing where in which peer review? subjected to independent review when?
Finding unknown DNA strands doesnt make it et, it just makes it unknown......


I have just been listening to the Live ATS broadcast with Amy Vickers speaking about the new DNA findings.
Was that you on the phone in zazzafrazz?

Vicky seems to be a totally convinced that the Star child is not human, although I rather suspect that some of her rather sweeping statements may not stand up to scrutiny if a geneticist were to question her.


To me it still sounds like Pye BS, at first Pye thought it was an ET skull hence the name "star child".....then when 2 separate DNA tests confirm that the mother is human......then Pye then tries to convince everyone that it must be an alien hybrid............but now the new anonymous DNA tests make Pye and his friends believe that it was fully alien.

I just wonder whether this anonymous geneticist is pulling a fast one.......knowing that Pye dearly wants this skull to be "alien" ........and this geneticist is telling Pye what he wants to hear......whilst lining his own pocket.

Either way though I really doubt that any Peer review will be forthcoming.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


love this.
stil discussing,';,.:.,:?.
need more evedence



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by darrman
reply to post by Logical one
 


love this.
stil discussing,';,.:.,:?.
need more evedence


Darrman.......don't you smell the BS?

Two DNA labs that have been named and made public have concluded that the mother was human, with the mtDNA was that of a typical Amerindian female.

The only lab that suggests the skull is fully non human is the super secret "cannot be named" lab!

edit on 5-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I'm happy to see that last night's show has gotten so many people thinking, and I'd like to clear up some of the understandable confusion that seems to be floating around about the Starchild Skull. I wish I had time to answer every post personally, but I'm afraid that we will have to make do with just this post and the mountain of free information on the StarchildProject.com website.

There have been three separate DNA tests done on the skull. The first in 1999 at BOLD in Canada, a lab not equipped to test anything older than 50 years--the Starchild is 900 years old--but the only lab at that time willing to undertake an analysis of it. After contaminating several samples they eventually obtained a result they said they were "confident" of, and the result was "human male." This result was announced, and you still see it floating around the internet. Unfortunately, it turned out to be yet another contamination, a fact proven by another, properly "ancient" DNA test, in 2003.

The second was done in 2003 by Trace Genetics in California (the same company that discovered the BOLD contamination). They recovered a small amount of human or very human like (the machines at the time couldn't tell the difference) mtDNA, from which they concluded that the Skull must have had a human mother. This is the result you will find on Wikipedia and several other sources. Although mtDNA was recovered and there was every indication that the sample was rich in DNA, the lab could not recover nuDNA. The conclusion was made that the father of the Skull may not have been entirely human. This spawned the "human-alien hybrid" theory, which the Starchild Project believed for a long time.

The third round of testing was begun in 2010, but it had indeed been a very slow and drawn out process due to limited funding and resources.In early 2011 yet another round of testing the mtDNA revealed that the Trace Genetics result was valid, but that they had recovered only a small amount of mtDNA, and that the area from which they recovered it does indeed look very human-like in the Starchild Skull. However, the majority of the mtDNA definitely does NOT look human like. This brought us to the only logical conclusion: that the Skull is not human, and may be from a not-of-this-Earth alien.

It is now June 2011, and the Starchild Project has released some preliminary results from this third round of testing. You can read about them in detail here: www.starchildproject.com... and www.starchildproject.com...

Bear in mind that BOTH of these preliminary reports are designed for regular people and are written informally. When further verification is completed the geneticist will finalize his formal reports for peer review, and then after a couple of years or however long that process ends up taking, you will see it announced in "Scientific American" etc. We are breaking the rules by releasing information early, but that is our policy and we stand by it. Those of you who won't believe it until the peer reviewed report is released are welcome not to, we are only trying to educate those who wish to be educated with the information that we have now.

It is, however, a shame that some of you are being so disrespectful to our geneticist and his team. There are very few people willing to go against the establishment and test something of this nature, and I think they should at least be respected for their credentials and willingness to conduct this study without bias against it. I'm sure that other labs will test the Skull in years to come, but this is financially impossible at this time.

Progeria, hydrocephaly, and dozens of other conditions have been thoroughly examined as explanations for the Skull, and none of them fit the morphology. I strongly suggest that anyone posting to this thread visit www.starchildproject.com and type whatever you think it is into the "search" box and see if we've already covered it before you post. Just because Wikipedia says something hardly makes it true. We've been trying to correct some of the outdated information of that site for years and it keeps being changed back again.

Wikipedia and several people here have cited an article written by Steven Novella. My limited personal experience with the man has led me to believe that he is totally unconcerned with the truth, and a little internet research leaves even graver concerns. Google "pseudo-skeptic steven novella" some time. I freely admit that I have not verified whatever you may find there, but it certainly makes you wonder.

The bottom line is this: We would be perfectly happy if the Starchild Skull was 100% human. We would verify the results, report them, and gladly move on. Unfortunately, the facts, even at this early stage, make that conclusion impossible. If this Skull is human, they will need to re-write the books on what a human is. All of you are welcome to think what you like, write what you like, go on the record in any way that you choose. We know that the testing is being done to the highest standards, and we know that we have already found DNA and other evidence in the Skull that clearly indicates it is not human.

Thank you all for your interest in this subject, I hope you will continue to educate yourselves, and that you enjoy the debate, whatever conclusions you draw from it.

Amy Vickers
www.StarchildProject.com



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Believer

DNA results alien... "It's alien!"
DNA results human... "flawed testing"

Skeptic

DNA results alien...."flawed testing"
DNA results human...."It's human!"



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Amy,

I am assuming you had read my earlier post, where I made this statement.


Originally posted by Pimander

Luckily, any protest can easily be overcome with continued repetition and reproduction of results, isolating more and more unique fragments to add to the library of data already being created from Starchild DNA.

Our geneticist is confident that complete confirmation will unfold over the following months as the Starchild Skull’s entire genome is recovered using advanced sequencing technology. Ultimately, he will be able to formally announce that he has absolute, ironclad proof that a significant part of the Starchild's genome cannot be found on Earth.
www.starchildproject.com...


The thing that is missing here readers is quite simple. The reports only become credible when independent researchers are allowed to get samples on the skull and given an opportunity to repeat the procedures. That would also depend on them giving proper details of the methods they used. If we could repeat the results in a couple of laboratories then we have something. There is no other way to verify these claims.

If the details of methods are not revealed and independent testing don't happen this work is bogus! Anybody working on the project is free to contact me any time to discuss arranging some independent tests. I'd better not hold my breath as this could have happened years ago surely?



Originally posted by starchildproject
The bottom line is this: We would be perfectly happy if the Starchild Skull was 100% human. We would verify the results, report them, and gladly move on. Unfortunately, the facts, even at this early stage, make that conclusion impossible.


Surely that is no reason why your results so far cannot be verified?

All you have to do is publish detailed methods and allow another lab to use samples of the skull to see if the results are repeatable. If you have found something as Earth shattering as you claim then you should be seeking international recognition? What is going on?

And for God's sake - don't try to retrieve the entire genome of the damn thing from one 900 year old skull! We'll both be dead before you manage it - if you ever do.

Regards

Pimander



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Believer

DNA results alien... "It's alien!"
DNA results human... "flawed testing"

Skeptic

DNA results alien...."flawed testing"
DNA results human...."It's human!"


True Skeptic

No independent verification of results.... "inconclusive"

Come on folks.... Wake up!



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

I agree. I was illustrating the dichotomy prevalent in this thread. The idea that one result either way is conclusive is both ignorant and unscientific.

I'm ashamed at both believers and skeptics. ATS has declined.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 

Sorry Fox, I misunderstood you there mate.

I hope ATS readers can see that I am trying to force the issue into the realm of real science. I wonder why I bother sometimes but maybe I just like punishing myself like this.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
I find this very weird that they just found this out today, for I heard this was the case about a year ago, on a show that was at least 6 months old.


Well anyway if it is a human hybrid it will solidify my beliefs about ancient civilization and the role aliens have played. But I'm still left wondering what the hell is going on now!


edit on 6/1/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)


well in the mean time he was taking donations, if the work finished no more donations.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchildproject

The second was done in 2003 by Trace Genetics in California (the same company that discovered the BOLD contamination). They recovered a small amount of human or very human like (the machines at the time couldn't tell the difference) mtDNA, from which they concluded that the Skull must have had a human mother. This is the result you will find on Wikipedia and several other sources. Although mtDNA was recovered and there was every indication that the sample was rich in DNA, the lab could not recover nuDNA. The conclusion was made that the father of the Skull may not have been entirely human. This spawned the "human-alien hybrid" theory, which the Starchild Project believed for a long time.


Amy, I am glad you are on here to receive a bit more scrutiny as well you should for such an "Earth shattering" conclusion that you make.

However Trace genetics from what I have read did not JUST conclude that the mother was human but that the skull was haplogroup C.
You say the "conclusion" was made that the father may not be entirely human.......conclusion made by who Trace genetics?........Lloyd Pye?

Are you also suggesting that X and Y chromosomes were not detected in the skull as previously stated.

Also what does your "secret" geneticist actually say about the latest findings?


Originally posted by starchildproject

The bottom line is this: We would be perfectly happy if the Starchild Skull was 100% human. We would verify the results, report them, and gladly move on.



Something tells me that the above statement is not true.......you wouldn't be happy if the skull was 100% human after all you would have to rename the skull "Earthchild" wouldn't you?
edit on 5-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Believer

DNA results alien... "It's alien!"
DNA results human... "flawed testing"

Skeptic

DNA results alien...."flawed testing"
DNA results human...."It's human!"




You can also add:

Starchild Project Team:

DNA test 1 results HUMAN ......flawed testing....bad unsuitable student conducted tests

DNA test 2 results HUMAN .........must be Human/Alien hybrid

Anonymous DNA test 3 ..........Totally Alien,,,,,,,,,conclusive proof......DNA test 2 flawed!
edit on 5-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
If it is real,the news will be suppressed or weakened somehow,maybe condemned to "internet rumors" and ignored,,....if it isnt real,its just more false trails....



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join