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.

 

DNA analysis of Paracas skulls found to be human-like creature.

page: 11
93
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

micpsi

OccamsRazor04

bottleslingguy
reply to post by raymundoko
 


explain how hydrocephali changes your bone's chemical makeup and causes fibers to grow inside it.


Answer my question. WAS DNA testing done on the X and Y chromosomes? If so what were the results? WAS DNA testing done on the mtDNA, if so what were the results?


If you had followed this story more closely, you would have realized that your question is misplaced because Brien Foerster has stated publicly that the microbiologist investigating his skulls won't release the details of his analysis until they are complete.

So you will have to be patient.


False, those details have been 100% released. Seems you are the one not following closely. The X and Y chromosomes have both been examined, and the results released. The mtDNA has been examined, and the results released.

Stop lying.




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

bottleslingguy

raymundoko
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


So the answer is no...you won't answer the question.


"Did two separate DNA tests done in 1999 and 2003 respectively show both parents were human and from haplo group c? "

no not both parents. the maternal and paternal nuclear dna was not recovered and if the MtDNA was recovered it should have at least have also recovered the maternal nDNA. can you explain that?


I just proved you a liar, BOTH parents were proved human by BOLD.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by raymundoko
 


you aren't even making sense. explain why there was no maternal nDNA recovered and don't just repeat that it has been answered. it hasn't.
No, you aren't. BOLD found 100% the Starchild was human. The testing done could not determine what caused the physical anomolies of the skull, because that was not what Pye paid for. He paid for Forensic testing, not Diagnostic testing due to cost.

The Forensic testing concluded 100% Starchild is a human skull. They said they would be willing to do the Diagnostic testing as well, to determine exactly why the skull looked like it did.


[This is the crux of the matter. What we have now are test results for "loci that have forensic significance." The forensic testing of calcified tissue (bone) is done with markers in the range of 100 to 300 base pair lengths, which is adequate for answering broad-based questions like, "Is a sample male or female? Is one sample related to another?" Or even, "Is it human or ape or cow?" Such determinations can be critical in situations where old bones are recovered in an isolated, unmarked grave and foul play may be suspected. On the other hand, diagnostic testing is done with markers longer than 500 base pairs in length, which provides a much finer determination of DNA characteristics.

What we must decide now is whether to move forward with diagnostic testing on the Starchild, which could tell us whether or not its physical anomalies are due to some kind of known chromosomal disorder (Down's syndrome, hydrocephaly, etc.). That potential gain must be weighed against the assured cost, which will be much greater than forensic testing (and is a primary reason we opted for forensic testing in the first place). Also, any diagnostic lab will face the same degree of degradation the BOLD lab encountered.]

Sincerely,

David Sweet Director, BOLD Lab


Boom. Bye.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Lets be realistic

Any discovery made that would put into question both Evolution and Creationism, will not be publicized.

It would essentially put everyone out of business. Any testing would have to be done in someone's basement and unfortunately that would just add to the further discrediting of it.

Its a shame that anything like this or similar invites a horde of accredited scientist to quickly debunk it as soon as possible or to outright ignore it which essentially silently debunks it as well. Lets face it, that is the goal generally. Prove that anything that appears different isn't different at all.

Science claims it endeavours to learn and discover new things, but only if it supports existing theories.

I am not talking about small discoveries that may impact the science world in a big way, but larger ones that cross over into the general public.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PowerSlave
 


I already posted where this WAS tested by two different independent labs, which both concluded the Starchild skull was 100% human. It was only after that Pye hired a known hoaxer, who claimed they tested hair and discovered it was 100% bigfoot .. then it was revealed it was Opossum hair.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

bottleslingguy

raymundoko
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


So the answer is no...you won't answer the question.


"Did two separate DNA tests done in 1999 and 2003 respectively show both parents were human and from haplo group c? "

no not both parents. the maternal and paternal nuclear dna was not recovered and if the MtDNA was recovered it should have at least have also recovered the maternal nDNA. can you explain that?


I just proved you a liar, BOTH parents were proved human by BOLD.


I'll let Lloyd explain that one to you: "However, in 2003 the BOLD results were invalidated by Trace Genetics, a well-regarded ancient DNA lab in California that concluded the nuclear DNA could not possibly have been recovered using even the most sophisticated technology available to BOLD, and therefore their result must have been a contamination (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). The 2003 test also indicated the Starchild Skull's paternal DNA was unlike normal human DNA (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). As these are the only two DNA tests referenced by the Wikipedia article, and since human nuclear DNA was not recovered by either test, it is impossible for the article to state whether the skull is or is not human. In 2010 new DNA tests were conducted on Starchild bone using improved technology, and it was found that a significant portion of the nuclear DNA recovered does not correlate to any DNA yet found on Earth. Thus, there is simply no way to legitimately call the Starchild Skull a "human.""

BOLD B.S.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

bottleslingguy

OccamsRazor04

bottleslingguy

raymundoko
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


So the answer is no...you won't answer the question.


"Did two separate DNA tests done in 1999 and 2003 respectively show both parents were human and from haplo group c? "

no not both parents. the maternal and paternal nuclear dna was not recovered and if the MtDNA was recovered it should have at least have also recovered the maternal nDNA. can you explain that?


I just proved you a liar, BOTH parents were proved human by BOLD.


I'll let Lloyd explain that one to you: "However, in 2003 the BOLD results were invalidated by Trace Genetics, a well-regarded ancient DNA lab in California that concluded the nuclear DNA could not possibly have been recovered using even the most sophisticated technology available to BOLD, and therefore their result must have been a contamination (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). The 2003 test also indicated the Starchild Skull's paternal DNA was unlike normal human DNA (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). As these are the only two DNA tests referenced by the Wikipedia article, and since human nuclear DNA was not recovered by either test, it is impossible for the article to state whether the skull is or is not human. In 2010 new DNA tests were conducted on Starchild bone using improved technology, and it was found that a significant portion of the nuclear DNA recovered does not correlate to any DNA yet found on Earth. Thus, there is simply no way to legitimately call the Starchild Skull a "human.""

BOLD B.S.


First, that is a bold faced lie. Show me where Trace genetics said that? They did not.

Attempts to amplify mtDNA for fragments containing the diagnostic mutations for Native American haplogroups A, B, C and D were performed on extract SCSe2. Multiple amplifications indicated that the sample possessed an AluI restriction site at np 13262 indicative of Native American haplogroup C.


Attempts to amplify fragments of mtDNA were performed to test for the presence of diagnostic mutations fo r Native American haplogroups A and C. The sample did not appear to possess the diagnostic HaeIII mutation and np663 indicative of haplogroup A. Multiple amplifications did reveal the presence of the AluI site gain at np13262 indicative of haplogroup C.

Trace genetics proved the mother was 100% human and from Haplogroup C.

While it is possible to obtain nuclear DNA as well from ancient samples, the reduced copy-number at any particular nuclear locus relative to mtDNA makes it less likely that a particular extract will contain sufficient DNA for the analysis of a nuclear genetic locus using presently available PCR methods. The ability to amplify nuclear DNA from the SA-1 extractions but not from the SCS-1 extractions could be a product of any of a number of factors.

The BOLD lab in 1999 had to try multiple times to get nuclear DNA, and stated that it would be very difficult for any lab (including themselves) to find more.

Your post in no way invalidates the BOLD results, and I see NOWHERE that Trace Genetics says what he claims they say.

In fact, they somewhat support BOLD.

Attempts to amplify fragments of the amelogenin gene located on the X and Y chromosome[3] were uniformly not successful.


So trace also found an X and Y chromosome, they were simply too degraded to test.

I challenge you to show me ANYWHERE Trace Genetics makes any mention whatsoever of them finding DNA unlike any known humans.

In short ...
Known and respected BOLD lab found 100% human only DNA.
Known and respected Trace Genetics lab finds 100% human only DNA.
Unknown secret in house geneticist finds Alien only DNA.

I guess if you can't get the results you want you can buy them from a fraud.
edit on 22-2-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   


Airing Monday, February 24th, 10pm EST.

Please check the ATS Live forum for the show thread.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
A new Red Ice Radio interview:


Brien Foerster & L.A. Marzulli - Hour 1 - Paracas Elongated Skull DNA Analysis & The Nephilim Connection

March 3, 2014

. . . We’ll hear about the skull sample test results and how the DNA mutations are unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. We are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans. . . . They’ll talk about how information that challenges the mainstream record is silenced and covered up while the Darwinian model rules science. . . .

www.redicecreations.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


No reputable testing lab has ever reached these conclusions. Only proven frauds.



new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join