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 Update: 8/20/2012 "geneticist writes Abstract about Starchild DNA!"

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
So we once again have an unnamed scientist giving inconclusive results. Then we once again have Pye saving if he can get more money we'll get conclusive results next time. How many times has he pulled this now? I find it absolutely amazing that he can get the same people to give him money over and over without changing up his con.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
He's been pan-handling for 20 years - two decades non-stop of 'Uhhh I need more money.' He's discounted EVERY professional conclusion that the skull is human. This *new release* is standard procedure for a guy who tends to release two cliffhangers per year. Late summer is one of his favourite times to do this. Last year, year before and the year before were the same time.

This time around *if* the report ever comes out (it's getting on for two years with this anonymous geneticist), we'll see how strong his evidence is. He's caught the interest of Tyler Kokjohn, PhD microbiologist, so at least someone trained in the subject will be looking at the evidence for hand-waving.

The problem with Pye is unless it's proven to be an alien/ET skull, he'll fall back on his 20 years old argument that science is fixed, he knows better and that we're all made by aliens. Somehow or other, there's an excellent chance that Summer 2013 will see Pye asking for money because the 'proof is finally just around the corner.'

By then, I hope we're all enjoying the real debate about evidence of life being discovered on Mars.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I conversed over the phone with Mr. Lloyd Pye in and around 2003.

It's an interesting skull - particularly the orbital morphology - even for

a brachycephalic, possibly hydrocephalic child with or without synostosis

the orbits are extremely shallow (ie., never seen that, ever).

But, the CT scan of the temporal bone - and I read those with some

familiarity - is very human. Yes, very human.

Hope there's enough gene fragment recoverable from the marrow space

to identify the ethnic group - or separate it -from 'us'.
edit on 8/21/2012 by drphilxr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 




The problem with Pye is unless it's proven to be an alien/ET skull, he'll fall back on his 20 years old argument that science is fixed, he knows better and that we're all made by aliens. Somehow or other, there's an excellent chance that Summer 2013 will see Pye asking for money because the 'proof is finally just around the corner.'


Woohoo, go get 'em, Tiger!


Rip the Mickey out of this PyeClown just like you did Stephen Greer! Rain hail and Hell on him!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
That was a really interesting article. I would like to see them analize the Peru elongated skulls as well. I feel this
article confirms that this is a person's skull who had two eyes, two ears, a nose and a mouth with or with out small tongue. These pysical simularities were the only parts similar to humans. The bone is made of different chemical ratios, the eyes are shallower, the ears lower, the individual can hear better than humans, their brains were larger/ probably more intelligent. The person was smaller in height.

The universe is vast and very old.... the possibilities for all kinds of other persons comming here over millions of years is highly possible. Why is that idea so impossible for normal people to grasp? We exist, someone else exists. After all we are searching for Earth like planets, we are probably in someone elses telescope view.
One question I find interesting is why do all the creatures have only two eyes? Maybe a single artist themed us to be all similar...



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Dna can not be faked, it's like math, it's either right or wrong, the sequence is repeatable, so it will easy for other scientist to check it. The DNA is different than any other living animal/humanoid. if you read/see the last presentation by Pye, he explains what the differences are, I believe he is in the process of having other labs do testing to confirm.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zigoapex
 


I believe he is in the process of having other labs do testing to confirm.

Nope. Just his tame geneticist (who continues to be unnamed). No one else is allowed to look at it.

The author of this Abstract obtained skull bone samples under the condition that DNA samples would be confined to one laboratory.
www.starchildproject.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Chill, everyone.

I've completely and utterly debunked Mr. Pye. Sent him home crying to his mama, and I have it on tape.

He wet his pants too.

If you want to see the debunking of the century, just send me $45.00 for the password to download the video. I'll include a 10-page pdf document detailing the horrific debunking that caused the urination episode.

Can't spend $45.00?

Send $20.00 and I'll email you the pdf.

I need to stress here that the video is of exceptional quality, having been made by a Hollywood Producer/Dirtector team you've all heard of (they, of course, don't wish to be identified here, considering the subject matter and the humiliation they visited upon Pye.)

Please note that I can't keep up this highly important work without a funding source, and the UFO conspiracy people have cut me off at every turn. I am now fully dependant on the interested open-minded few who are willing to think outside the box.

Place your orders today. Quantities are limited.

Harte



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The author of this Abstract obtained skull bone samples under the condition that DNA samples would be confined to one laboratory.



That's an odd condition for someone seeking scientific verification. Seems to me the goal would be independent corroboration by multiple labs.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

What's your paypal account number?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Having ploughed my way through a hundred plus papers on human genetics, including about ten or so on Ancient DNA... I can tell you the odds of pulling anything but low grade mitochondrial DNA of any item this old that wasn't stored somewhere in a cold, stable temperature for the duration of the specimen's existance are slender indeed. Honestly, getting Y chr data would be unlikely. The amount of info claimed to have been pulled from this sample is also, well just really unlikely. Anyone who'd managed to get that level of info out of an ancient poorly preserved specimen would have been publishing other papers on how he did it

It isn't laid out the way a DNA study typically is, which makes me a bit suspicious as I've never seen one formatted in that manner. Also, the absolute lack of an authors name to go with the 'paper' makes me suspicious, as does some of the wording. Some of the wording is phrased exactly the same as some of the stuff Pye wrote, which also makes my eyebrows raise. Seeing the skull referred to as 'an entitiy' is just bizarre. I'm not a genetics specialist (it's required that I have a basic understanding of the work), but I know a few people who are. I'll send it to them and ask for an assesment. I'd be surprised if it's Kosher..



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Heresy
 

I'd like to know how, with such fragmentation, a fragment of the FOXP2 gene could be positively identified as such. This seems to be of crucial importance to Pye (and his tame geneticist).

edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


So you are saying this guy couldn't handle your intimidating nature and is a failure because of it.
The evidence is not real because the founder is a fraud.
I believe it could be another as of yet unidentified humanoid species and am kind of disappointed at the lack of the right kind of research by the scientific community on identifying if it is truly a new species or just a mutation. I don't need to spend twenty bucks to watch you trash this guy. Even though I think your money making attempt isn't real, I gotta give you credit for such a good sarcastic post.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Give the guy a break. Its not cheap to buy inclusive results from a scientist.
edit on 22-8-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
As a molecular biologist, I can tell you that this is certainly not written by anyone with an education above a bachelors level in biology. It looks like a mish mash of things that he thought sounded cool.

If I remember, I'll pick it apart in the weekend.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




I'd like to know how, with such fragmentation, a fragment of the FOXP2 gene could be positively


I'll ask.

One of the biggest issue I have with that 'paper' is that I've never seen the subject of a study referred to as anything other than; subject, specimen or individual.... 'the entity' indeed!

Also, what is a (purported) specialist in ancient DNA doing rambling on about the skull morphology and the chemical composition of the skull (neither would be in any way his field).

The way it's written is just hinky.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 




I can tell you that this is certainly not written by anyone with an education above a bachelors level in biology


That's what I thought. It looks like he got an undergrad to write out the technical data and filled in the rest himself. The language use is all wrong.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Heresy because: typo



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   


Trolls and Skeptics invariably try to scorch supporters, demanding "proof," demanding "evidence.
reply to post by exdog5
 


This sounds crazy, but sounds angry that people want some kind of evidence to back his claims. Aren't you supposed to get evidence then make a claim, instead of vice versa?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


So you are saying this guy couldn't handle your intimidating nature and is a failure because of it.
The evidence is not real because the founder is a fraud.
I believe it could be another as of yet unidentified humanoid species and am kind of disappointed at the lack of the right kind of research by the scientific community on identifying if it is truly a new species or just a mutation. I don't need to spend twenty bucks to watch you trash this guy. Even though I think your money making attempt isn't real, I gotta give you credit for such a good sarcastic post.


Believe what you want, just make sure you send a cashier's check.

That's to make sure that the check is good. I don't weant to hear "I believe I have enough in the bank to cover that check." LOL

Harte



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Do you accept realistic looking two dollar bills?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join