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 on the New Zealand News asks if it is Extra Terrestrial?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   


Interesting video, especially for the news.


I know the video is new as it was done on August 2nd, and he states that the father is "not-human". He also explains all the anomalies that plague the Starchild skull.

Interesting information none-the-less.

Any thoughts?

Pred...




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
It can't be a new video as Paul Henry hasn't been on 'Breakfast' for a while:

Paul Henry resigns



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


Ok,
it was uploaded to UFO Casebook on that date. Sorry, my fault.

www.ufocasebook.com...

Pred...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
star and flag
2nd



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Ugh, I thought this was over long ago. It's pretty much definitive that the starchild skull is the result of progeria, is it not? I mean, the progeria explanation seems to be pretty convincing.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 
Cheers Pred, what ATS always needs is just one more Starchild thread.

The last one was still active two days ago,

Only 4 months left in the year, gosh I hope we can squeeze in another few before Christmas. Lloyd needs the money and proof is just around the corner....


Why not add to the ongoing discussion? DNA Proof the Starchild is Alien!!!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
The Vid was uploaded in May 2009.

So I wonder what the update is now ???



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Yes, yes I know, I thought that this video was new, and as I do not live in New Zealand I had no idea it was an old broadcast.

An interesting interview though.

Pred...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Droogie
reply to post by predator0187
 


Ugh, I thought this was over long ago. It's pretty much definitive that the starchild skull is the result of progeria, is it not? I mean, the progeria explanation seems to be pretty convincing.


Typical T. Human. Just throw out any data you don't like and proclaim it what you want! Facts are meaningless!

Did you not watch the vide? Fibers in the bone, bne itself is harder than yours, and thinner. Not to mention other structures contained.

Sorry, y'all, Mr. Pye has the PROOF he's been searching for, expecially when you combine what is presented here with the latest findings. The creature was Extraterrestrial, and it is proven. Course in fine T. Human fashion you will all ignore the facts and data and proclaim it a hoax. Sad!

As I have said before, ALL of the data must be considered in the analysis, otherwise you are working with corrupted data.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 
I thought you were the proof?

You should send a swab off to Tyler Kokjohn. He's seriously interested in the subject.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 
I thought you were the proof?

You should send a swab off to Tyler Kokjohn. He's seriously interested in the subject.



No, not "the proof" yet, but, I have a good supply of samples for evidence
Getting the data I need isn't so easy with the current state of the ecconomy.

Thanks for the reference. I may just send an email and see what might be worked out.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I can categorically state that the Star Child Skull is far from significant evidence of ET life on Earth. I tried to explain that in this thread (link below). I know what I am talking about because I have a working knowledge of molecular genetics. I have offered to look at the work and help get it verified but it isn't going to happen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is more in the thread including my attempt to engage someone from the project to no avail.
edit on 10/8/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


read your link. Question; Are you paying for the independant analysis?

A working knowledge of molecular biology is easy to come by, heck, I have that and I' just a poo ole software engineer (sometimes we learn wholly unrelated thing in the course of a project. Sometimes way more than we wanted to know).
Anyway, a working knowledge of any subject only requires a little work.

Though, you are right; the work must be verified.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

I wouldn't consider paying out of my own pocket.

If independent researchers could access to what is going on, and it looks like attempts to verify the work might be worthwhile, funds could be raised. The independent researcher allowed in has to be someone not selected by the project - for obvious reasons. There are some wealthy individuals and organisations around, but they aren't fools.

The strongest indicator that this "research" could be bogus is simple. Why is this taking so long before published, verifiable work is released along with access to skull samples by other researchers. The longer this takes to happen, the less credible the claims.

Please don't take me for a hard-nosed closed minded skeptic. I am nothing of the sort. If this was more credible, I'd be in there like a rat up a drain pipe.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
With regards to that person who mentioned wikipedea on the tv interview......I'd suggest they log in to the starchild site and read Lloyd's response to the wikipeadea article...very, very interesting!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

I wouldn't consider paying out of my own pocket.


ahhhh ... I did, Pye did. But then, those test can get pricey. When carried to Pye's extreme, quite alot, mine not so much yet.



If independent researchers could access to what is going on, and it looks like attempts to verify the work might be worthwhile, funds could be raised. The independent researcher allowed in has to be someone not selected by the project - for obvious reasons. There are some wealthy individuals and organisations around, but they aren't fools.


It is quite obvious that they will have to share both their data, and, physical samples. Without that his claims become baseless. I guess that will show us all just how cnfidant they are in the results they have.



The strongest indicator that this "research" could be bogus is simple. Why is this taking so long before published, verifiable work is released along with access to skull samples by other researchers. The longer this takes to happen, the less credible the claims.


I fail to see how the passage of time invalidates any of the data or sample test results. I would suspect, going down the same road as the starchild research ... DNA analysis, that it is a matter of cost. Even very simple DNA test are around $100. The testing that Pye has been doing. From what I've seen they are looking for more than the usual "markers"; this will raise the cost markedly. And, there are a host of other financial issues that can delay the progress. Patients is the key here, truth will not be rushed.



Please don't take me for a hard-nosed closed minded skeptic. I am nothing of the sort. If this was more credible, I'd be in there like a rat up a drain pipe.


No worries ... I won't take you for anything until you prove yourself.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
I fail to see how the passage of time invalidates any of the data or sample test results.

Sorry, perhaps I need to be clearer.

The project have claimed that they already have data that makes them sure that some of the DNA extracted from the skull is almost certainly not from Earth. If the data is scientifically valid, then it must be possible to publish. Right? If the work is robust enough to be published then you publish.... Or you don't go public with your findings.

Am I making sense?

On the other hand, if the work is not robust enough to be published in a peer reviewed journal, then why would you go public? Money?

Months then years go by and where is the published work and the opportunity for independent labs to verify? Nowhere?

The results, if produced by methods robust enough to be accepted by your peers, are publishable. Surely you can see that. The fact that this has not happened after this passage of time suggests to me that the data just won't stand up to the scrutiny of peer review.

Clear enough?

OK, I could turn out to be completely wrong. If so, I will be one of the first to congratulate the project. I will also be delighted that we finally have publicly available robust data suggesting that we are almost certainly not alone. However, as the months pass by, It seems to be getting less and less likely.


Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
No worries ... I won't take you for anything until you prove yourself.

What would you like me to prove?
edit on 12/8/11 by Pimander because: I could be wrong.




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


I do understand what you are trying to say, but, it seems that you were implying that the passage of time in some way degrades the data, could just be me. I truly hope that everyone understands that this simply can not happen.

However, on the surface you are correct; the passage of time decreases the probability that they have enough valid data. It is als possible that they simply want to have all possible data, in which case it could take years to compile. Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to the quality of their data, and, the reasons for not puplishing.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join