Osiris said:FOund this video just recently, search for it on here but didnt find it.
Anyone see this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgjGfGk7ESI
Osiris said:FOund this video just recently, search for it on here but didnt find it.
Anyone see this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgjGfGk7ESI
Uploader Comments (Envylife904)
5h 53m 27s -6 10' 58 These are the coordinates of Nibiru expected to break the solar ecliptic plane on March 4, 2011 for the pole shift to take place with the first of three conjunctions on March 15, 2011. Google Sky has a large rectangle blocking out the image in a deliberate act to deceive a global population. The third conjunction takes place on Nov. 22, 2011 or the same day Rothschild murdered JFK...
Bud said:So, the video producer is saying that comet Elenin is 'Planet X Nibiru' and that the 1998 movie 'Deep Impact' is representative of what is to come and that the 'real end of creation' is October 28, 2011 and that it could already be seen in the sky in the pic below except that Google Sky is blocking it out?
hithere said:Bud said:So, the video producer is saying that comet Elenin is 'Planet X Nibiru' and that the 1998 movie 'Deep Impact' is representative of what is to come and that the 'real end of creation' is October 28, 2011 and that it could already be seen in the sky in the pic below except that Google Sky is blocking it out?
There's that date again. I remember the same date mentioned by malevolent and not trustworthy entity Iliuka as signifying some big negative cosmic event. (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=18898.0)
anart said:If you are trying to increase your discernment, it is important to pay attention to everything.
The video above was youtube dated 8 August, 2010. It provides an introduction to the subject and tells us (from Lloyd Pye's perspective) where the matter stood at the time.Osiris said:Sorry, not used to SMF forums, been a few years. While i Like that video this is the one i wanted to post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moEYqLdupIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skullParanormal researcher Lloyd Pye, the owner of the skull, says he obtained the skull from Ray and Melanie Young of El Paso, Texas, in February 1999. According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.[...]
[...]Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School concludes that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and that the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.
DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.
Q: At the UFO conference there was a guy named Lloyd Pye who has this skull that he thinks is an alien skull.
A: Even if it is, do you feel he has a chance in Hell of being heard?
Q: Of course not. But, for my own personal curiosity, is it an alien skull or a severely deformed child?
A: Maybe it is a goat.
Q: It’s not a goat! It is definitely humanoid type! That was not even nice!
A: We were not being mean to you. We meant chimpanzee, but we got confused! Sorry …
_http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2011March.htm[...]It states that within the millions of DNA base pair strings catalogued in the NIH database, none were even “similar” to this section of the Starchild Skull’s DNA! And please note that this astonishing result was obtained with the search parameters set to the broadest match criteria that seeks even a “somewhat similar” match, not only an exact match.
For all of the Starchild’s DNA fragments, a wide net was cast into the NIH database with the hope there would be minimal doubt about results. Indeed, they were unequivocal: Some of the Starchild’s nuDNA is different from anything previously found on Earth!
The largest composite fragment that could not be matched in the database was several thousand nucleotides long! However, until some biological sense can be extracted from these non-matching nuDNA fragments, it’s too early to draw any definitive conclusions.
So, how can “biological sense” be extracted from them? One way would be if such DNA fragments are found to represent the coding part of a gene. That would mean it could be translated into a protein, and attempts could be made to predict the function of the protein.
Such a coding fragment is yet to be found among the recovered samples of the Starchild DNA because, as it happens, only about 3% of the total human genome is coding sections. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that random sampling will miraculously discover a coding section, and all of the Starchild fragments have been obtained randomly.
The Starchild Project’s team considered this development a vital step forward in the quest to establish the truth about the Skull’s genetic heritage. However, skeptics and would-be debunkers soon pointed out that the submission parameters of a BLAST search could be manipulated by an unscrupulous researcher adjusting them to gain a favored result.
When those trying to discredit the Starchild Project suggest its results have been faked or fudged, they fail to acknowledge that all Project members have put their professional and personal reputations at stake. Project members have by far the most to lose from invalid results—much less faked results—so each of them works hard to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to secure accurate, repeatable results at every point in the process.
To serve that policy, the nuclear DNA results so far obtained have undergone sequential verification, but it must be stressed that they are now, and will remain, only fragmentary, and they will ultimately require subsequent repetitions for absolute confirmation. This will be completed by our geneticist and his colleagues as time and funding permit.[...]"
Patrick said:However, I'm easily impressed by people with the ability to make something out of what would, at first glance, appear to be nothing;
anart said:Patrick said:However, I'm easily impressed by people with the ability to make something out of what would, at first glance, appear to be nothing;
What you are saying is that you are impressed by illusion - which is antithetical to the purpose of this forum.
Patrick said:anart said:Patrick said:However, I'm easily impressed by people with the ability to make something out of what would, at first glance, appear to be nothing;
What you are saying is that you are impressed by illusion - which is antithetical to the purpose of this forum.
What I thought I was saying, anart, was that at first glance Schiavone (for example) appeared, for many reasons, to be unable to win the French Open; she made something out of, relatively speaking, nothing. I found this actual accomplishment impressive. Pye could appear to be easily dismissed as a nut, yet he persists, which I also find impressive. Will he also make something out of what appears to be nothing?
anart said:Patrick said:anart said:Patrick said:However, I'm easily impressed by people with the ability to make something out of what would, at first glance, appear to be nothing;
What you are saying is that you are impressed by illusion - which is antithetical to the purpose of this forum.
What I thought I was saying, anart, was that at first glance Schiavone (for example) appeared, for many reasons, to be unable to win the French Open; she made something out of, relatively speaking, nothing. I found this actual accomplishment impressive. Pye could appear to be easily dismissed as a nut, yet he persists, which I also find impressive. Will he also make something out of what appears to be nothing?
Can you take a look at those two examples you've given and see how completely unrelated they are? In fact, they are so unrelated as to make the comparison nonsensical. There is reality and effort and there is fantasy and lies - the first example is reality and effort, the second is fantasy and lies. Why would you equate them?
lake_george said:I have spent some time over the past few days looking at information and lectures from Lloyd Pye, and I thought I would post the most relevant points here. (I did a search of this site and found nothing recent or very much about Pye.)