NEW! Starchild Skull DNA Result..

The information presented is intruiging. But as usual when it comes to fringe topics like this, the information is coming from sources that are more than willing to accept, that this is something unique and very likely extra terrestrial. In the outro he is already showing bias towards the outcome of the dna analysis pointing towards such a conclusion.

For something to be truly fair and square, for something to make sure that we can make an informed opinion about something, is that the information presented has to be argued by all parties. That includes skeptics, believers, "objective" and "unbiased" analysts etc... And I haven't seen this information presented while fulfilling this criteria.

However, I suspect that mainstream science aren't too eager to touch on this topic. They are working within a paradigm that doesn't allow them to think beyond its borders, and it's most likely a career suicide to give it support. Furthermore, if the man in this film proves to tell the truth about his findings and if his methods that lead to the conclusion of what this really is, then he may actually garner support from the mainstream. Heterodox subjects that threatens the current paradigm will always have a hard time breaking through, but if this man use legit and accepted methods of science to argue his findings, he may, as I said earlier, gain acceptance in the community. I say community because if the scientific community accepts it, so will the rest.

Edit: Star and Flagged, as this is quite interesting, whatever the outcome may be.

[edit on 10/8/10 by Droogie]

Id be willing to take that bet...Intresting nun the less.

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
Im just waiting for the ATS members who are going to start discrediting who is doing the results, and then start affiliating it with people who this case isnt even affiliated with. just watch....This is very itneresting and I cant wait to see the final results...

Yep, then they start their own thread on the same subject.

reply to post by Kandinsky


LOL
The west of Ireland is newfoundland! Aaaaaa no im in a very beautiful place called Co Mayo IRELAND! an Euro's is TPTB's money!

My bright blessing's to you back in the old country. S & F to you! Nice find! Hopefully I'll make it back to the old sod before I die. If not, may the Bean Sidhe wail as my soul passes through the ancient homeland. As for your fine post, I have no doubt that it is an alien artifact. Namaste

im sure if the dna was different to earth based dna ie all the dna signatures that have been collected you could state that the dna does not match and must be off world or unknown dna from a species that we havent catologed yet

im reminded of dna being a computer program with algorithms and if those algorithms are different to ours (earth based) then it may help us decode our own junk dna by comparison

puts tin foil hat on

the story of these people are recorded in the tradition of their culture and im sure they said the star people crashed here would this be verifycation of this cultural story?

after all before dna storys carried knowledge of past

erm... did he say at the end of that video "DNA trumps Nature"?

...

And to the OP: Top marks for your ambigously misleading thread title... ... -.-

As for the skull itself.. id say because of the fact that it so closely resembles a human skull in its fundamental composition, it Is human, or rather Was human-ish.. mutant. If it truly was of alien origin, i think we'd be looking into the eyesockets of an entirely different skull in terms of its physiology, size, shape, proportions, features, and the overall essence of its fundamental composition. But looking at this "star child"skull, i see far too much of a resemblance to Earthly skulls.. not something i would expect from a species which evolved not only on a different planet, but a completely different solar system, perhaps even galaxy. DNA "trumps" nature right (well IMO DNA is Nature, but thats something for an entirely different topic of discussion). So, DNA nurtured in different enviroments in different parts of the universe would have an ENTIRELY different aesthetics, let alone the actual physiological dynamics of its being.

[edit on 10/8/2010 by DizzyDayDream]

[edit on 10/8/2010 by DizzyDayDream]

reply to post by Blue Shift


While a valid argument, to prove this you would need a mutated or damaged example. If they spent 10 years on this project, I doubt you'll find proof of a similar occurrence.

Originally posted by DizzyDayDream
erm... did he say at the end of that video "DNA trumps Nature"?

Yep.It's not all about the Dna in this case,iI want to know what that red residue is,left behind in the marrow cavity,in any other animal it would be polished clean upon death.

I'll wait for the final results.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.

We aren't talking about finding a whole new species here. The star child is (at least partially) human.

We just found out the most importent news of the human race. we are not alown. lets tell everyone about it on you tube.

reply to post by camaro68ss

Why do people on here say that a medium like Youtube is not to be taken seriously? when after all is said and done its only a way of putting moving film ie videos on to the screen which is in front of you! would it make any difference if another outlet put up the vids instead? Just because Youtube isn't filtered by some "official body" - why does that make its content less credible - surely you can do your own filtering and make up your own mind?

I keep seeing the same problem: "Just because modern science says one thing in which all agree and one science disagrees doesn't discredit that scientist."

Let's blow this one up shall we? Ok. Firstly, the scientific method is used to prove things are 90-99% accurate all of the time. It has never been and never can be used to prove anything definitely. If one scientist claims otherwise to what 50 scientists have proven in their experiments what he may have is a healthy hypothesis or a poor one. In the matter of this man we have a poor hypothesis. It is then up to him to make this hypothesis a theory, to prove it and allow an environment where others can agree that it is accurate. I have a feeling people think that scientists are like politicians. It doesn't work like that, science is sound. Just because one crack-pot says that it's an alien, or that global warming is fake and the consensus says otherwise doesn't mean a lick until he can prove his hypothesis and others can as well, then it's theory and that's the closest thing to fact we can get in our current zeitgeist.

Secondly. If it was an alien human hybrid, this would be based on the previous suspicioning of man being half earth animal, half cosmic (sparing the fancy details) . Now that in it's self disproves any examination of a hybrid to say "Oh it's part human and part alien." Since based on this argument a human is already a "hybrid" and therefor finding something other than "human DNA" says nothing about alien's breeding with early anthropoids.

I've heard about this skull. It's a red herring, and if you actually piece the front back together it's a normal skull it just looks cosmic because it's broken. LOL!

[edit on 10-8-2010 by signoregregorio]

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
While a valid argument, to prove this you would need a mutated or damaged example. If they spent 10 years on this project, I doubt you'll find proof of a similar occurrence.

Possibly not. But neither would they find proof of it being "alien" without a verified alien DNA sample to compare it to. So which is more likely, that the DNA anomaly is a home-grown mutation that just hasn't been cataloged yet, or a chunk of DNA from some hypothetical aliens?

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Why do people on here say that a medium like Youtube is not to be taken seriously
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mere fact you would ask that speaks volumes.
Honestly.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Looking forward to it.

About 4 years ago when the human genome project had just started to put out information I remember reading about a small percentage of human DNA material that was of a composition not found on Earth. It may have been part of the junk DNA but I remember clearly...the elements which made up this small segment of DNA were not from here.

I looked for the pages again about a year ago because I was in a debate with someone over this "alien DNA" The pages were removed. The HGP site was broken down into incomprehensible medical sites and a few cartoon diagrams and illustrations for children and teachers.

So, if it's just partly alien.... then this is the skull of a hybride creature.. ?

Anyway, how do they know what is alien ? we don't even know what alien dna looks like do we..

reply to post by rusethorcain


What the...?
How could Human DNA, which is only found on Earth, contain DNA not found on Earth?

reply to post by Blue Shift


I understand your point but he didn't say it WAS alien in nature. He simply said it contained DNA not in the database which doesn't necessarily mean it IS alien. There is nothing to debunk here. This starchild being alien is a THEORY based on information contained in the DNA sample. So you can either believe this is a unusual mutated human skull or an alien skull. There is nothing to debunk.

This is good news!

Hopefully we will have disclosure within our lifetimes or possibly even very soon