Alien body recovered shows DNA not Human

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Springer

 

Even proven that the being is COMPLETE human (at this point it's part human),

Which part is not human?

I'm not seeing where it is mentioned in Nolan's report. In fact everything I'm seeing assumes that it is a human specimen and NOT a non-human primate.

Starchild spin at work.

What report are you reading? The data hasn't even been released. If you watched the movie you'll understand that DNA sequencing doesn't show what the father was because there's several UNKNOWN sequencing nothing that's ever been recorded, if it was a complete human it would of shown right off the bat. They have found several unknown mutations or they cant find which genetics these are anomalies are coming from.

Why are you refuting against the data as you're some pseudo skeptic?

Well Little Alien hmm Maybe Maybe Not well discovery's of Little People are allover the Place !

Just a few

San Pedro Mountains Mummy
en.wikipedia.org...




The Hobbit
Homo floresiensis
en.wikipedia.org...


Then Again Resemblance of Neanderthal dont exist either !

As this Old Photo pretty much looks like one

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Springer

 

Hopefully we will not have to wait for much longer. Gary P. Nolan one the scientist from Stanford who performed DNA testing stated that he will post the data on the web and in journals for EVERYONE to critique and analysis. He's hoping someone will spot a mistake or finding something he didn't find. In the movie he sounded very confident in his data analysis.

No one in the movie, not even Greer himself stated this being is alien. Even proven that the being is COMPLETE human (at this point it's part human), the anomaly itself is scientifically astounding and should be picked up by every major mainstream media. But we will see how free of a market our media really is...

edit on 23-4-2013 by samaka because: (no reason given)

i on the other hand am still waiting for that excursion video i asked you of greer that shows what he claims it shows , ufo's.


And so greer did not state it was a alien (hard to believe tbh but then again greer suggests more then he states) so why is it part of his film again ?

What makes you think I'm going to look for the video for you? there's hundreds of them go look for them yourself and be the judge and several the in film has been shown like I said.

The creature is in the video because it's scientifically astounding because of it's anomalies and it helps generate awareness of this phenomenon knowing mainstream something like this gets swept under rug.

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Springer

 

Even proven that the being is COMPLETE human (at this point it's part human),

Which part is not human?

I'm not seeing where it is mentioned in Nolan's report. In fact everything I'm seeing assumes that it is a human specimen and NOT a non-human primate.

Starchild spin at work.

What report are you reading? The data hasn't even been released. If you watched the movie you'll understand that DNA sequencing doesn't show what the father was because there's several UNKNOWN sequencing nothing that's ever been recorded, if it was a complete human it would of shown right off the bat. They have found several unknown mutations or they cant find which genetics these are anomalies are coming from.

Why are you refuting against the data as you're some pseudo skeptic?

He already substantiated that with this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by AboveBoard
For those who are interested. I went through the film to gather the names, quotes from their research (this and next post) and then found their bios. These are the scientists working on the 6" being from the Sirius film.


Scientist doing the DNA research for the film Sirius:
Gary P. Nolan, PhD of Stanford School of Medicine, Director of Stem Cell Biology

From the horse's mouth:

X-Ray imaging and CT scan results confirmed the specimen is biological and is not a non-human primate. The specimen was concluded by the medical specialist to be a human child with an apparently severe form of dwarfism and other anomalies.

This report is not a formal conclusion on the nature of the mutations or the underlying cause of the disorder in this human specimen.

The presence of ~9% “unmatched” DNA should not be interpreted to represent anything unusual about the specimen itself. Reasons for the lack of match can include artefacts generated during library preparation, low quality reads from the instrument, or insufficient data to allow computational alignment against the human reference standard

siriusdisclosure.com...

Since Nolan's report is directly linked it's easy to see the "mutations" that occur in the process of "paraphrasing". Guess they figure the true believers will never read the source material.

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Springer

 

Even proven that the being is COMPLETE human (at this point it's part human),

Which part is not human?

I'm not seeing where it is mentioned in Nolan's report. In fact everything I'm seeing assumes that it is a human specimen and NOT a non-human primate.

Starchild spin at work.

What report are you reading? The data hasn't even been released. If you watched the movie you'll understand that DNA sequencing doesn't show what the father was because there's several UNKNOWN sequencing nothing that's ever been recorded, if it was a complete human it would of shown right off the bat. They have found several unknown mutations or they cant find which genetics these are anomalies are coming from.

Why are you refuting against the data as you're some pseudo skeptic?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Try reading Nolans actual words.

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Springer

 

Hopefully we will not have to wait for much longer. Gary P. Nolan one the scientist from Stanford who performed DNA testing stated that he will post the data on the web and in journals for EVERYONE to critique and analysis. He's hoping someone will spot a mistake or finding something he didn't find. In the movie he sounded very confident in his data analysis.

No one in the movie, not even Greer himself stated this being is alien. Even proven that the being is COMPLETE human (at this point it's part human), the anomaly itself is scientifically astounding and should be picked up by every major mainstream media. But we will see how free of a market our media really is...

edit on 23-4-2013 by samaka because: (no reason given)

i on the other hand am still waiting for that excursion video i asked you of greer that shows what he claims it shows , ufo's.


And so greer did not state it was a alien (hard to believe tbh but then again greer suggests more then he states) so why is it part of his film again ?

What makes you think I'm going to look for the video for you? there's hundreds of them go look for them yourself and be the judge and several the in film has been shown like I said.

Erh yeah , that is the exact problem. I have seen many of them and none of them have showed what he claimed. Considering that you are so convinced by him and claim that he does show it i thought you might want to help me out.

Again , i would love to be proven wrong and see it.

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Springer

 

Even proven that the being is COMPLETE human (at this point it's part human),

Which part is not human?

I'm not seeing where it is mentioned in Nolan's report. In fact everything I'm seeing assumes that it is a human specimen and NOT a non-human primate.

Starchild spin at work.

What report are you reading? The data hasn't even been released. If you watched the movie you'll understand that DNA sequencing doesn't show what the father was because there's several UNKNOWN sequencing nothing that's ever been recorded, if it was a complete human it would of shown right off the bat. They have found several unknown mutations or they cant find which genetics these are anomalies are coming from.

Why are you refuting against the data as you're some pseudo skeptic?

He already substantiated that with this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by AboveBoard
For those who are interested. I went through the film to gather the names, quotes from their research (this and next post) and then found their bios. These are the scientists working on the 6" being from the Sirius film.


Scientist doing the DNA research for the film Sirius:
Gary P. Nolan, PhD of Stanford School of Medicine, Director of Stem Cell Biology

From the horse's mouth:

X-Ray imaging and CT scan results confirmed the specimen is biological and is not a non-human primate. The specimen was concluded by the medical specialist to be a human child with an apparently severe form of dwarfism and other anomalies.

This report is not a formal conclusion on the nature of the mutations or the underlying cause of the disorder in this human specimen.

The presence of ~9% “unmatched” DNA should not be interpreted to represent anything unusual about the specimen itself. Reasons for the lack of match can include artefacts generated during library preparation, low quality reads from the instrument, or insufficient data to allow computational alignment against the human reference standard

siriusdisclosure.com...

Since Nolan's report is directly linked it's easy to see the "mutations" that occur in the process of "paraphrasing". Guess they figure the true believers will never read the source material.

So we know it has human dna sequencing in it, this has been stated. But why can't they find the father sequencing? There's very good DNA material that's been extracted so damage dna material that would damage the father's sequencing shouldn't be a problem. I'm going off from what we know about the specimen, that it has a human mother..

And I'm telling you to watch the film, because there's plenty footage in there that has never been released to the public.

reply to post by samaka



You are making some strange assumptions there still , why ?

reply to post by 0bserver1


You completely avoided his question.
Who is the doctor?
What laboratory are they working from?
Where is the DNA sequence?

Originally posted by Rubic0n
reply to post by samaka

 

You are making some strange assumptions there still , why ?

That it's part human? That's not an assumption, that's from the data has been gathered because there's NO father sequencing or hasn't been found yet. If it was human the DNA sequencing can easily be gather and compared but in this case along with abundant amount of unknown dna mutations it appears is part human.

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by Rubic0n
reply to post by samaka

 

You are making some strange assumptions there still , why ?

That it's part human? That's not an assumption, that's from the data has been gathered because there's NO father sequencing.

Let me help you (even though you refused to help me)

There's very good DNA material that's been extracted so damage dna material that would damage the father's sequencing shouldn't be a problem.

That assumption.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


Really great sketches...

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by Rubic0n
reply to post by samaka

 

You are making some strange assumptions there still , why ?

That it's part human? That's not an assumption, that's from the data has been gathered because there's NO father sequencing.

Let me help you (even though you refused to help me)

There's very good DNA material that's been extracted so damage dna material that would damage the father's sequencing shouldn't be a problem.

That assumption.

I'm not doing this with you nitpicking, go watch the film as I have stated before. Who cares what assumptions I've made if you want to discuss that then you're wasting your time? Critique contents of the film and data that has been gathered. I'm going off from my experience and my own perspective.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to comb through the internet and find videos to satisfied your needs because that's wasting my time. You asked me what phenomenon is worth 5k I've told you there's plenty of videos featured in the film and from what I've seen and my own opinion is worth the money.

reply to post by samaka



?? nitpicking ?

You claim that all DNA samples that were taken were fine and good enough. Im soohoo sorry that you mind me asking how you came to that.

wth




Yeah and about that video of greer that actually shows ufo's , it shows you dont actually have one since he never released one.

Originally posted by Rubic0n
reply to post by samaka

 

?? nitpicking ?

You claim that all DNA samples that were taken were fine and good enough. Im soohoo sorry that you mind me asking how you came to that.

wth

Yeah and about that video of greer that actually shows ufo's , it shows you dont actually have one since he never released one.

edit on 23-4-2013 by Rubic0n because: (no reason given)

The fact that scientist have gather DNA information from material that is older and damage and can still manage to gather complete DNA sequencing. We have here a mummified specimen with organ tissue and bone marrow fragments and the fact the scientist never stated the material is scarce and damage. Yeah such a huge leap of an assumption there.

Actually it shows I don't care enough to prove anything too you, but that's just my opinion.

I should really stay out of the paranormal threads, but y'all have such interesting titles.
Very neat story I'd love to believe it, but I saw a lot of "ifs and possiblys" not feeling definite proof here.

S&F you got the child in me jumping with joy for a moment.

reply to post by Covertblack


The question is, who is "god" exactly?

reply to post by Schrödinger


Hello - Please see my posts above for info taken from the film - I went through and dug out/did a transcript/pulled up bios on the scientists involved. :-) I hope this helps answer your questions at least re:the scientists and where it was done, etc.

Post Link 1
Post link

peace, AB

Edit to add - Oops! Sorry Observer1 & Schrodinger - not meaning to butt in on a conversation!!

Why do I have a feeling that this is Steven Greer's work?

Some of the things mentioned in this thread smell of his money grubbing mitts.

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by 0bserver1

 

If it isn't peer reviewed it isn't science!!!

science is far too overvalued, controlled, censored, snarky, corrupt, greedy and jealous an institution to be trusted to tell us any truth regarding extraterrestrial life. you're using the wrong yardstick to measure the potential importance and impact of a discovery like this.

Nonsense -- anything but scientific methodology is just fantasy.

Because, honey, if you think that most modern scientific belief is based on the scientific method, it's YOU who are living in fantasy land...


Jaden

100% correct.