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.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
you and iteration just keep repeating yourselves like a broken record. that's what you get with linear thinking. You both fail to realize the actual physical evidence for the skull corroborates what the dna is telling us.
Of course we keep on repeating it if you continuously ignore the facts
The evidence says the skull is 100% human, and you've repeatedly failed at presenting objective evidence proving otherwise.
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by colin42
not trying to call you names but that is very naive
reply to post by colin42
Text
Im going to have to start quoting you soon as your posts appear to change before and answer can be given. No reason made for edits.
Lets ignore Pye doing what all opponents of evolution use to say fake by showing a jaw that may have looked correct but it’s his best guess. Of course he then shows an artists view of how it would look which again you slate evolution for.
I think you missed the part where they had a seperated piece of upper maxila. This proves that this thing was not human because he's getting a set of adult teeth while he allready has adult teeth, determined by the length of the existing roots.
He claims teeth still waiting to grow. Looking at the deformed skull would there be enough room for a full set of teeth?
He's a differernt species so it's probably normal.
The small muscle area for chewing and the lack of a full set of teeth would make me think this poor individual would have to chew longer with less.
If the person offerd so much resistance in determining what the skull is, do you think they would have given permission to repeat there name?
'Someone said to me you can show me 10,000 differences and it would not matter.' Who was this someone? Even if he existed was he a scientist? Again not backed up but then a belief system needs none.
Yes he did, but I think your getting confused because there are TWO mothers involved in the making.
DNA. He starts by saying due to age of skull specialists needed to be sourced due to the difficulty of recovering DNA. He then said the MOTHER WAS HUMAN and her mtDNA was easy to identify.
I'm not sure but doesn't matter cause they have both.
I'm no expert but isn’t it the case that the mtDNA is recoverable long after any other DNA degrades to a point of useless?
Thats because it was determined by the second lab that there was NO WAY the first could have tested for alien.
Pye ignores what he said to begin with. Ignores what a difficult task it would be to identify the fathers DNA and states after 6 failed tries is proof there is something wrong and alien.
what I remember is some matched, and some didn't.
The next section then tries to sound respectable but compares a DNA fragment to known types and does not say there was no match. It states never found on this planet, an outrageously leading statement from someone wanting to be taken seriously.
after he was midway into the test, it was easy to tell, yes.
He then talks about the GNOME being looked for and again without any back up talks about this will be shown to be alien. Some scientist this bloke. He intends to make the evidence fit his ‘facts’ AND HE WANTS YOUR MONEY to carry out the test.
I'm sorry but I'm not familliar with your lingo.
Ends with mumbo jumbo and a rebuff of evolution with an artist’s impression that has evidence and prattles on about his idea that has none.