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.

 

Newest Starchild videos

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 

how 'bout this: you watch the three newest videos and pick out the things that are wrong or false or that Pye is making up? can you do that?




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I've said this before in a previous thread, and I will state it again... that is not a deformed child skull, when you see a deformed human skull its obvious that its deformed its usually a lump here and a bulge there...

the starchild skull has symetry, its a normal skull for whatever being it was its just plain as day when you compare it to deformed human skulls. It's also missing completely a nasal cavity and parts of the jaw which also looks normal for the skull.

this added with the fibers that are woven into the bone material itself screams non human skull. whether it was a hybrid or not, or a full alien baby.. who knows

if there is such a thing as a smoking gun, this is it. hands down. as far as getting the government to spend money to test it.. if they did, the skull would vanish along with the roswell debris. so.. better for it to take years of donations to study than to simply vanish.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Well, as I stated in my first post, I think it is a problem that the material presented in the videos doesn't not seem to have been peer-reviewed. I am not educated on the subject of FOXP2 genes or any of these things, so when he tells me that this skull shares less of these genes with humans than frogs, I am not sure how to interpret that. Especially since the skull looks more human than it does amphibian.

Since I am not competent to comment on the actual science behind this investigation, I have to rate the information on different criteria.
All I am saying is that I have no clue where he got these numbers and theories from, so until some more people who actually understands this stuff backs up his research I don't see why I should believe it.
Also it is very uncommon for serious scientists to make such extraordinary claims before their stuff has been subjected to the scrutiny of their peers.

And I still do not understand how the claim of it being half-alien is justified. Officially we have no samples of alien DNA and therefore no way to compare what ever samples are taken from the skull with such a thing. None of the evidence presented in the video would suggest any extraterestial origin.
I am not saying the skull isn't special, just that there is no reason to think that it is alien, and the fact that it is presented as such makes me doubt the whole thing.

Your turn.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Well, as I stated in my first post, I think it is a problem that the material presented in the videos doesn't not seem to have been peer-reviewed. I am not educated on the subject of FOXP2 genes or any of these things, so when he tells me that this skull shares less of these genes with humans than frogs, I am not sure how to interpret that. Especially since the skull looks more human than it does amphibian.

Since I am not competent to comment on the actual science behind this investigation, I have to rate the information on different criteria.
All I am saying is that I have no clue where he got these numbers and theories from, so until some more people who actually understands this stuff backs up his research I don't see why I should believe it.
Also it is very uncommon for serious scientists to make such extraordinary claims before their stuff has been subjected to the scrutiny of their peers.

And I still do not understand how the claim of it being half-alien is justified. Officially we have no samples of alien DNA and therefore no way to compare what ever samples are taken from the skull with such a thing. None of the evidence presented in the video would suggest any extraterestial origin.
I am not saying the skull isn't special, just that there is no reason to think that it is alien, and the fact that it is presented as such makes me doubt the whole thing.

Your turn.


FOXP2 genes are the best way to tell whats not a human without a doubt, to prove that something is not human (without ET claim) without a shadow of a doubt in any academic circle would be from 2-4 consistent differences, over 2-3 tests(completely rules out stat anomaly) with ET claim he needs the best of the best of the best, to confirm multiple tests prior, as for it having a closer amount of differences to frogs in no way mean that it should be or look like or be related a frog or anything else, what's being represented is how incredible how far away from human it is
FOXP2 I believe is related to speech

And in no way has he "claimed" it to be an alien, its just a part of hypothesizing that it "may well indeed be alien"
note how he uses specific words

now to suggest that it may well indeed be so, is down to putting the multiple facts together (note many of these facts are just not seen in any other creature, man or germ)

As for peers scrutinizing I'm sure that's happening only reason you don't hear about it its because they cannot find any faults.

keep in mind the genealogy is a science field subject to extream pressure for flawless and faultless and absolute correctness of data produced, to even release data of this magnitude back to the customer requires balls of steel as this is staking 100% of credibility of all persons, and company's involved

if anyone claims this to be a hoax i suggest they apply for disability as that would be exhibiting sings that your on the extream left of the bell curve, like stated in the video, even a cave man can understand this



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by easybreezy
 


here's where the "alien" connection comes in for me- the human MtDNA with non-human dna inside the nucleus. that screams artificial manipulation. combined with "mythologies" of star people impregnating human women puts it over the top. also the way "experts" don't want to touch it seals the deal for me. too much here to ignore



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by easybreezy
 


Now that was the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you. You raise some good points.

I still find it problematic that the research isn't more transparent - it's not that I don't find his arguments compelling or, as he states and you repeated, even a caveman could understand it, sure, but I am not that sure if he is just pulling it out of his rear or actually getting this data from a real labertory. All I would like to see are a few names and maybe an adress. I can understand why people would be worried about putting their carriers on the line, but if they are right this is major and sometimes you have got to trust the data you get. Right.

I saw some of his older stuff, where he also covers the subject of bigfoot, and even though he once again makes a very compelling case, it seems like this guy has a tendency to throw around wild theories.

So I still think it is silly to think, or to theorize, that it might be extraterrestrial unless something specific actually indicates just that. There are still much to be learned about this world, and there are plenty of things in the animal kingdom which would have been hard for people to believe in just a decade ago. Like the vast amounts of life recently found beneath the arctic ice, or the Poecilia fish that lives in sulphur pools, with concentrations of sulphuric acid so high that it would melt the skin of a human in a matter of seconds.

I mean, even if it is proven not to be human, that doesn't prove anything except that it isn't human.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy

FOXP2 genes are the best way to tell whats not a human without a doubt, to prove that something is not human (without ET claim) without a shadow of a doubt in any academic circle would be from 2-4 consistent differences, over 2-3 tests(completely rules out stat anomaly) with ET claim he needs the best of the best of the best, to confirm multiple tests prior, as for it having a closer amount of differences to frogs in no way mean that it should be or look like or be related a frog or anything else, what's being represented is how incredible how far away from human it is
FOXP2 I believe is related to speech


Let's not all pretend that we are experts on the FOXP2 gene..........and that in part is the problem.......Pye is not an expert on FOXP2 genes and yet you will seem quite happy to lap up what Pye says about the FOXP2 gene, even though as I have already mentioned Pye has no formal qualifications in any of the sciences
I've also stated that it would be MUCH MUCH more useful if the unnamed geneticist carrying out the tests to be quoted about what he/she thinks the latest findings might mean.

So instead of talking about things we really have little knowledge of,how about answering my earlier question:

on what grounds do you cast doubt on the previous tests carried out in 1999 & 2003 which concludes the skull is human?....I asked for your reasons but STILL you give none.

edit on 20-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987

I mean, even if it is proven not to be human, that doesn't prove anything except that it isn't human.


When 2 previous DNA tests conclude that the skull has human DNA.......it's pretty hard prove that it is not human!

I am reminded of a Big Foot hunter who found some hair and convinced himself it was bigfoot and he submitted the hair for DNA testing...........the lab identified the hair as coming from a dog..........Pye is the equivalent of this big foot hunter.......but instead of acccepting that he has collected dog hair and not big foot, be puts in the same hair again for testing!

edit on 20-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


I see your point about him throwing around wild theories, but the evidence has left him no choice but to do just that.
The possibility of earth origin at this stage would be greatly increased from just about 0(by just about zero i mean zero's retarded brother point-infinite) if there was at any point in earth history, any creature currently cataloged where be it germ bug reptile mammal fish, had even one characteristic of what defines starchild, even vaguely. I'd say were looking at around a 30% chance (that's about as far we can go with that argument) don't get me wrong, there is always the possibility, I'd actually like to evidence indicating otherwise. then maybe this would get more attention by the MSM, i hope William Shatner picks this back up now there's mitochondrial DNA evidence (was allusive for a while)

im glad you bought the Poecilia fish up
that's whats called an extremophile, now there called that very deliberately, due to the fact they have come to a point where evolution has allowed that to take place, now what can explain the star child to get like it is? and that is were things took a dive chance wise with the fibers and tooth for a skull, my only thoughts for that to happen, is high gravity and or low atmospheric pressures (i know high grav = high pressure but fiber reinforcement can go with low pressure, brains are squishy and may expand so hold em in) so just ask yourself why has it become as is? love to hear theories as to why evolution may have created this being

I can concur there is nothing to suggest in an absolute sense that it is of alien origin. (such evidence would be an atomic evidence of element's not found on earth...well that's it i think on that front)
and on the big foot side of things such connection is speculative at best due to again none of the major points having a crossover, lets say for a sec that we had proof of something in that line having a skull made of tooth id doubt we'd be looking at the skys



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

id like to say sorry for getting a lil hot under the coller



edit on 20-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy

im gonna be VERRY clear, you sir are an idiot. and in the short time i Have been posting I have not seen one intelligent post in connection your name, you are no more than an troll, that brings up bs, and dissinfo, your bringing up old evidence that has been well and truly turned over HENCE now that mitochondrial is available and FOXP2 has now BLOWN everything you have just said out of the water


I am not going to resort a personal slanging match.

I just want to hear your answers........which once again you have ducked.

You say the old evidence has been turned over.......by whom exactly? and on what basis?




edit on 20-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy

im gonna be VERRY clear, you sir are an idiot.


Ah yes, when unable to formulate a logical response, always remember to resort to ad hominem attacks, while using terrible grammar and harping about "intelligence."


Don't be mad because he makes sense. Sorry that your fantasy world is crumbling.


Charlatan Pye could use some extra cash. Why don't you send him yours?
edit on 6-20-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

I am reminded of a Big Foot hunter who found some hair and convinced himself it was bigfoot and he submitted the hair for DNA testing...........the lab identified the hair as coming from a dog..........Pye is the equivalent of this big foot hunter.......but instead of acccepting that he has collected dog hair and not big foot, be puts in the same hair again for testing!

edit on 20-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


well this indicates that you do in fact engage in slinging matches, he has every right to retest without slander.
and frankly to suggest pye pulling this stuff from no were is slander, when everything else is pointing to it being correct, have you taken the time to read the DNA reports??? and cross check references?
1993 was found to be

(sourcewww.starchildproject.com... )
In Brief: In 1999 the Starchild Skull was tested by the BOLD forensic teaching lab in Canada. They thought they had recovered human nuclear DNA from the "Y" chromosome, proving that the Starchild was a normal human male. This result was later determined to be a contamination.



(sourcewww.starchildproject.com... )
In 2003 the Starchild Project was able to arrange another DNA test, this time by Trace Genetics, the ancient DNA lab that had tested the Kennewick Man. They were able to recover mitochondrial DNA, but not nuclear DNA. This left two options--either the nuclear DNA was too degraded to recover, or the DNA was too different from that of a human to be detected by the human primers they were using to test it.

edit on 20-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy
This result was later determined to be a contamination.


Who exactly determined it to be contamination?


(sourcewww.starchildproject.com... )
In 2003 the Starchild Project was able to arrange another DNA test, this time by Trace Genetics, the ancient DNA lab that had tested the Kennewick Man. They were able to recover mitochondrial DNA, but not nuclear DNA. This left two options--either the nuclear DNA was too degraded to recover, or the DNA was too different from that of a human to be detected by the human primers they were using to test it.


They were able to recover Mitochondrial DNA which confirms the mother to be Haplogroup C group human female............they were not able to recover the Y Chromosone DNA from the father........which is not too surprising as Y Chromosone DNA is much much harder to recover from old specimens like the 900 year old "Star Child" skull.

I don't see too much evidence of either of these 2 previous test results being turned over........please show me some quotes that DON'T come from Pye or The Star Child project...........as it seems those are your only sources of reference.

edit on 20-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


1. Dr. Ripan Malhi and Dr. Jason Eshleman of Trace Genetics, specialists in the recovery of ancient DNA, meaning DNA from samples more than 50 years old. Dr. Malhi and Dr. Eshleman had previously worked on the high profile 5,000 to 9,000 + year old Kennewick Man skeleton found in Washington State in 1996.
credible people? id say so
2. In 2006, a company called 454 Life Sciences of Branford, Connecticut, announced they had developed a new DNA analysis methodology that enabled sequencing of any unknown DNA sample without prior knowledge of any of its sequences. The only requirement was that the sample to be sequenced had to actually be DNA (in a chemical sense).
3.454 was used for the 2010 results and there you have it allot more evidence all of a sudden

now thats were it gets cold for names, now why would that be?? could it be that he has inverters that are gonna want a return
cant just give it all away for free now can you

now i find it concerning that all of a sudden you happen to have knowledge about genealogy?
and yes i cannot cite a reference to this outside of what research he is willing to share for free, and neither can you!
but sit back and have a think, will all the known facts about this, the bone being more like teeth than bone, the skull shape in every single dimension, the fibers in said skull, and the thickness. no such things as a coincidence 4 times over on a single piece of evidence

now really can you believe that genes required to do these things would be as close to human as the early and thin margin the 2003 test goes by? on out dated equipment none the less, and following preset perimeters that are for detecting human DNA



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy

now really can you believe that genes required to do these things would be as close to human as the early and thin margin the 2003 test goes by? on out dated equipment none the less, and following preset perimeters that are for detecting human DNA



This is what puzzles me about your view point.
Back in 2003 they were looking for human DNA in the star child skull..........and they found it.
Now if back in 2003 If I took a piece of jewellery into a lab and ask them to analyse it,and the results showed that
gold was detected then that means that the piece of jewellery was made up gold.
If today I took that very same piece of jewellery to a more up to date lab, I may well get a more detailed analysis of what the jewellery was made up of.......but that doesn't mean that the Gold piece of jewellery will have somehow morphed into a piece of jewellery that now has no gold!

edit on 20-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


And there we have it you just made the fatal mistake. ASSUMPTION

now if you actually knew what your talking about you'd know that DNA is like an alloy, comprised of many different parts, the gold as you put it is still there, just stuff more valuable and exotic metals comprising the rest, that has never been seen before.

oh and another thing if you decided to actually look into this, you'd know that the 93 test was done by students so contamination barley needs to be confirmed, and if you actually looked at the results of the second done by highly reputably scientist they confirmed it with there findings.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy


oh and another thing if you decided to actually look into this, you'd know that the 93 test was done by students so contamination barley needs to be confirmed, and if you actually looked at the results of the second done by highly reputably scientist they confirmed it with there findings.


I think you mean the 1999 DNA test performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia.

Again who or where is the source that says it was a contaminated test?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


OMG WTF were in the hek did you get that???

the test was in Canada via BOLD a teaching institute

oh and i see the funny games... logged in logged of logged in logged out
edit on 20-6-2012 by easybreezy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by easybreezy

OMG WTF were in the hek did you get that???

the test was in canada via BOLD


Okay now it's showing!

BOLD is an acronym of Bureau of Legal Dentistry...........and British Columbia is in Canada!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join