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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
"The fragment of the Starchild's FOXP2 that has been recovered is VASTLY different from the human version! It is unmistakably FROM a FOXP2 gene, and one that is unmistakably human-LIKE, but it is indisputably NOT human"
We will no doubt hear arguments from mainstream scientists insisting it is some new kind of humanoid being, but it would have to be an exceptionally variant humanoid, something far away from Neanderthals and Denisovans, something nearly as genetically different from humans as chimps, which have 1,500 of those mtDNA variations compared to our 120 maximum.
With the Starchild Skull, the partial results obtained by our geneticist at the DNA lab we work with are every bit as reliable, and as compelling, as those from Max Planck. He uses the same analytical techniques, and his results are what theirs are—partial but compelling. And, like the geneticists at Max Planck, to put our geneticist’s results beyond all doubt, he has to complete them at least 30 times over, to the same extraordinary level of certainty.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
With the Starchild Skull, the partial results obtained by our geneticist at the DNA lab we work with are every bit as reliable, and as compelling, as those from Max Planck. He uses the same analytical techniques, and his results are what theirs are—partial but compelling. And, like the geneticists at Max Planck, to put our geneticist’s results beyond all doubt, he has to complete them at least 30 times over, to the same extraordinary level of certainty.
Who is this geneticist and where is this lab? This all seems a bit vague. Why would anyone believe stuff that isnt backed up by an official report produced by a named scientist from a named credible laboratory?
This isnt news...its a blog.
edit on 29-2-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
The problem is that even some of the "reputable" scientists have been exposed for the frauds and con-artists that they sometimes are. Yes, it's comforting to trust someone who's viewed as main-stream, but these people are human, they make mistakes, they lie and cheat,..... so no matter where the information comes from you have to take everything with a grain of salt. FOX and CNN are mainstream, but how many of us here trust that source of information? How many of us would rather go off the beaten path to find more information? Something to think about.