Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Fragment of the Starchild’s FOXP2 Gene is Recovered

page: 9
112
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hisshadow
 


Exactly, plenty of people would do the test. Yet he hires someone to basically feed us information, no independent review. Why do you think that is?

because the community of mainstream scientists are either afraid of losing their jobs or so brain dead there is no chance they can be revived.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Yes you could ask the same thing about God. That's probably why you shouldn't assume God would look human.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Yes you could ask the same thing about God. That's probably why you shouldn't assume God would look human.



I never suggested God looks human nor do I think the Skull's owner was a god. I have no idea nor will I speculate where life throughout the universe originated, but in my opinion it is a 100% probability that the universe is teeming with life of all kinds. I also can't imagine humans are at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of life forms, if so this universe is pretty lame. And the people who do think we are at the top of the intellectual food chain are limiting themselves to their own faults.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You don't know that though. The universe may just be that lame. It wouldn't make us the top, merely the most recent arrival to the top.

All the faculties of human intelligence tells us that we are at the top. That doesn't mean it is a lonely top. There may be a flag here from someone else who got here before.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


So now you are going to show me who these mainstream guys who refused to do the work right? I'm waiting.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


So now you are going to show me who these mainstream guys who refused to do the work right? I'm waiting.

it's a mindset. I'm sure once the dam breaks they will all be claiming some connection to it



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

sure and maybe the SC species was here before us? maybe THEY are the peaceful ones and us not so much, otherwise if they were violent or dangerous (like us) they would've eaten us a long time ago (like we would them or at least put them in cages).



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


This makes no sense as if it has traits from earthly species, then it is by proxy an earthly species.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


as the story goes their planet smashed into our original planet creating the asteroid belt, The new Earth captured their moon Kingu and settled in it's present location (google earth the pacific rim and picture an impacting body coming from the southern hemisphere and the tectonic plate movement is the Earth readjusting itself) and that could be how the building blocks or seeds got started.

sorry I made it sound as if the SC are the ones who made us.

edit on 24-3-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


yea I'm calling bull on that. No offense to you, it's just plain physics. There is no way what you speak of works out rationally.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Easy to claim it's the mindset, you offer no proof. My claim is that it is not their mindset and they would gladly do the work like they would do any other job. My position is bolstered by the fact they have not turned anything down, yours is weakened by the fact Pye never tried. You lose.

And the latest computer models suggest another planet hit the earth and the moon was created from debris ejected into space. Earth could never capture another planets moon, it's simply not possible and defies physics.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

how come Uranus rotates on it's side?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

Pye tried and you can keep your computer models. The Moon is not the same composition as the Earth and the rocks are much drier than Earth rocks
news.discovery.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Something probably hit its protoplanetary disk.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 
don't you think smarter people than us have already thought about things like that? they have no idea. I'm sure not many of them know about Sitchin's work, well actually after a tenth planet was verified some of them might have been intrigued by the connection. Actually his translation of some very old "creation myth" tablets talk about the outer planets in such a way that could only be verified thousands of years later. They counted Earth as the seventh planet because they started counting in toward the Sun. Why would they do that? How could they know those things? The "pre-Earth" planet called Tiamat was called a watery giant. An impact with something like that could explain not only the asteroid belt but the Oort Cloud and Saturn's rings.

I'm not suggesting there will be a collision with their home planet this winter, actually it shouldn't be in our vicinity for another 1600 years. but that doesn't account for any Moons that may be on an eccentric orbit. It's funny how our Moon doesn't have some wild spin especially after supposedly just recently forming after the Earth. We wobble so why not the Moon?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


yea I'm calling bull on that. No offense to you, it's just plain physics. There is no way what you speak of works out rationally.
well sure that's fine but when YOU need a collision for an answer you sure aren't shy to call for one



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Well there's much more than 10 planets. Stop having such silly view of the universe. There's 8 planets, 5 dwarf planets, and you an technically call all those 20+ moons planets too with their size.

You are first assuming past myths spoke of planets and moons in the same terms, and second assuming any of it is real to begin with.


You want to see Uranus form? Get a mist maker. spin some around a bowl. Then put your hand in the way and move it in a different axis. BAM, you have clouds moving at a different axis. Give it a few eons to compact from gravity and you have Uranus.

Explaining simple natural phenomenon with overly complex and subjective myths, and thy are myths, is nothing short of stupid. No offense to you, but your ideas are not logical and have no evidence for it.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Changing the direction of clouds is not the same as changing the direction of huge massive objects, fyi.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

science.nasa.gov...

your Uranus thing is a myth



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


The word Uranus doesn't even show up on that link.

So....





new topics

top topics



 
112
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join