Dinosaurs Have Skyscrapers and Cellphones? Maybe.

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



way to avoid the responsibility of explaining how you know it didn't or isn't happening. can you explain the different features of the Starchild brain? obviously you don't even know what that is about either so are we going to now try and swing for strike three?

If you had something to say about this you would have. You can't as evidenced by your contentless posts.

Choosing to pretend that a typical hydrocephalus skull is evidence of aliens, Pye thinks greys, is actually quite ridiculous. Pye chooses to claim that a search for nuclear DNA ending being unresolved suggests not deterioration of DNA, but alien DNA. That is ridiculous. An unclear test is an unclear test. The one thing we do know is that the skull provided both X and Y chromosomes.


tell me about the condition of skull sutures in hydrocephali and those of the starchild. guarantee you can't and also that you will start this personality attack next on either myself or Pye or both. you guys sound like a broken record and Pye just keeps getting closer and closer



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by veritascaudex
 



Yes. From an "evolutionary" viewpoint we are a success. Put a human in a strictly survival situation and all of a sudden our genetics aren't really hard-wired for success.

I disagree. We are soft-wired to lack success in the natural world since we are for the most part removed from it. Could we survive? Of course. The further we go back in time the larger the percentage of our population was without technology. Unlike most species we have learned to survive on almost all parts of the globe.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



they're gonna nail me for an off topic post but why not make a link to what ever it is that you're talking about. the condition of the brain sutures proves it was not deformed period end of argument


It is the cranial sutures that reveal the disease and the age of the human individual that died.

It is not surprising that some so tightly latch onto fantasies such as Pye's that they close to their mind to the evidence.

The onus is on Pye to support his claim, not on others to show that every goofy idea is false. Maybe you'd be able to supply the "condition" that you think suggests this was not a hydrocephalus child.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



tell me about the condition of skull sutures in hydrocephali and those of the starchild. guarantee you can't and also that you will start this personality attack next on either myself or Pye or both. you guys sound like a broken record and Pye just keeps getting closer and closer

The onus is on the claimant to support the claim, not on others to show it false.

I also would like to point out that the person with ad hominems is you and you alone. You've been chastised at least once by the mods.

What we do know is that Pye has had his skull checked and on each check the answer has always been human and a known deformity.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 
I have still never been told why we only have the skull yet we are told two skeletons were found laid side by side in a cave. What happened to the rest of the remains which could have told us so much more?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Excellent observation. You definitely onto an important issue. I think that the skull was picked up in the 1930s and Pye only got access in the 1990s.

Maybe the evidence against Pye's claims was calmly and deliberately discarded.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



they're gonna nail me for an off topic post but why not make a link to what ever it is that you're talking about. the condition of the brain sutures proves it was not deformed period end of argument


It is the cranial sutures that reveal the disease and the age of the human individual that died.

It is not surprising that some so tightly latch onto fantasies such as Pye's that they close to their mind to the evidence.

The onus is on Pye to support his claim, not on others to show that every goofy idea is false. Maybe you'd be able to supply the "condition" that you think suggests this was not a hydrocephalus child.


the sutures in the SC skull are normal and not indicative of hydrocephalus. not hydrocephalus do you understand this? the teeth wear proves it is not a child. you are spreading non-truths and intentionally ignoring some very important aspects to this which leads me to believe you have no intentions of finding the truth and even worse confusing the truth with false information and opinions.STRIKE THREE!!!
edit on 23-2-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 
Are you saying that hydrocephalus shows only in the skull? Surely not


I find when something as obvious as the missing skeleton is not mentioned there is usually something to hide, so until that little mystery is resolved and pye insists on avoiding peer review this 'star child' is nothing more than a prop to sell books and promote pye's agenda.
Like his books. I’m not buying it.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



tell me about the condition of skull sutures in hydrocephali and those of the starchild. guarantee you can't and also that you will start this personality attack next on either myself or Pye or both. you guys sound like a broken record and Pye just keeps getting closer and closer

The onus is on the claimant to support the claim, not on others to show it false.

I also would like to point out that the person with ad hominems is you and you alone. You've been chastised at least once by the mods.

What we do know is that Pye has had his skull checked and on each check the answer has always been human and a known deformity.


absolutely wrong on all counts



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



this is just more proof you guys don't know what the hell you're talking about and obviously haven't looked for the answers. simply waiting to be spoon fed is pathetic. if you have been paying close enough attention you should know the answers to this by now
Spoon feed me. What is the answer?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



the sutures in the SC skull are normal and not indicative of hydrocephalus. not hydrocephalus do you understand this? the teeth wear proves it is not a child. you are spreading non-truths and intentionally ignoring some very important aspects to this which leads me to believe you have no intentions of finding the truth and even worse confusing the truth with false information and opinions.


I'm sorry you post falsehoods like this, but the sutures are clearly indicative of hydrocephalus. That is what is reported by experts in the medical field that have examined the skull. The nature of the sutures is also indicative of someone about 5 years of age.

The rest of your commentary is silly and without merit.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It is odd to see religious fervor over the claims made by Pye who purposely misrepresents a skull.

I went to the starchild website to see what they have to say and they report a 5 year old.

www.starchildproject.com...

6. Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr. David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment[1].

7. Though some specialists who looked at the skull disagreed, I have always supported Dr Sweet in his belief that this was the skull of a 5-6 year old child.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



this is just more proof you guys don't know what the hell you're talking about and obviously haven't looked for the answers. simply waiting to be spoon fed is pathetic. if you have been paying close enough attention you should know the answers to this by now
Spoon feed me. What is the answer?


not my job



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



the sutures in the SC skull are normal and not indicative of hydrocephalus. not hydrocephalus do you understand this? the teeth wear proves it is not a child. you are spreading non-truths and intentionally ignoring some very important aspects to this which leads me to believe you have no intentions of finding the truth and even worse confusing the truth with false information and opinions.


I'm sorry you post falsehoods like this, but the sutures are clearly indicative of hydrocephalus. That is what is reported by experts in the medical field that have examined the skull. The nature of the sutures is also indicative of someone about 5 years of age.

The rest of your commentary is silly and without merit.
the sc skull sutures are not fused and that means not hydrocephalic also the sc skull is symmetrical and by it's very nature a hydrocephali skull is asymmetrical. also important to note hydrocephali does not result in any of the strange morphological features such as very shallow eye sockets, no sinus and no room in the mouth for a tongue... but those are only a few of the things that you guys don't like to talk about much. now with the brain model it proves without a doubt it is not something human. anyone who does their homework on this eventually realizes there are too many differences with a normal human skull leaving no other option available to people with common sense and no agenda.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Personally I think you are bluffing and do not have the answer. Besides, why should we guess as to what your thoughts are on a subject. The easiest and direct approach is for you to post your stance.

You claimed the skull was older due to something dealing with the teeth. That is a very rough method of estimating age especially considering the pathology of the skull. A better method is the sutures and these are typical sutures of a child of 5. I decided I would check a starchild site and they agree. This is a child. Interestingly, this child list a long time for such a debilitating deformity.

I'm sure you can present your stance on this topic.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
It is odd to see religious fervor over the claims made by Pye who purposely misrepresents a skull.

I went to the starchild website to see what they have to say and they report a 5 year old.

www.starchildproject.com...

6. Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr. David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment[1].

7. Though some specialists who looked at the skull disagreed, I have always supported Dr Sweet in his belief that this was the skull of a 5-6 year old child.


go to 4:55 mark



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



The onus is on the claimant to support the claim, not on others to show it false.

I also would like to point out that the person with ad hominems is you and you alone. You've been chastised at least once by the mods.

What we do know is that Pye has had his skull checked and on each check the answer has always been human and a known deformity.


1. I refer you to onus probandi
en.wikipedia.org...

2. All can see that 3 of your posts have been removed. Please avoid this

3. All tests of Pye's skull shows that skull to be human with a human mother and the skull has an X and a Y chromosome. Pye does try to claim that difficulty in collecting nuclear DNA must mean aliens is a rather fanciful response to poorly preserved DNA. The report on the DNA that Pye refers to makes it clear that DNA could not be successfully collected. Pye somehow finds it in himself to claim that an inability to collect DNA means aliens.


You are wrong on counts 1 and 2. I am correct on count 3 that the reports show human DNA. The starchild was human.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Which website did you get that information from? It is important to list it.


and by it's very nature a hydrocephali skull is asymmetrical.

Heard that mantra before. It is not true. I have seen a number of skull images online and photos that look symmetrical, but here is a medical diagram showing a newborn where the image is shown from an orientation where it is abundantly clear that this asymmetry claim is not true.
health.allrefer.com...

I also found this photo of a human skull
www.worthpoint.com...


also important to note hydrocephali does not result in any of the strange morphological features such as very shallow eye sockets, no sinus and no room in the mouth for a tongue... but those are only a few of the things that you guys don't like to talk about much.

Obviously ideas copied from a pye-lover website and probably as untrue as the symmetry claim

Steven Novella of Yale, an expert, states that the skull shows all typical signs of congential hydrocephalus. There are those that want to pretend that is not the case. Pye is one of them.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join