So you're only looking at one side of things and immediately dismiss every other option, even if something else might be more plausible?
This image seems appropriate right now:
http://i54.tinypic.com/26122bm.jpg
Printable View
So you're only looking at one side of things and immediately dismiss every other option, even if something else might be more plausible?
This image seems appropriate right now:
http://i54.tinypic.com/26122bm.jpg
I have heard the debunking stories and don't care for them. There is more suggesting it's true than false IMO.
Lay off bro, everyone can't always agree.
So you've looked at the vid I posted of Carl Sagan (a world famous astrophysicist and astronomer) explaining exactly why the event is staged and you still think it's true? What exactly is there that is suggesting that it's more true than false? I'd like to know if I'm missing something, because obviously I have not seen everything there is to see.
Eh... I suggest you watch this:Quote:
Originally Posted by segaddict
I firmly believe there are aliens... but not that they are constantly visiting Earth. No reputable scientist or engineer does given the logistics of space flight and the sheer distances involved. I don't believe in ghosts as there is no basis for their existence in any existing theory of the universe. I'm agnostic when it comes to God... given the definition, it's possible there is one, but there's also no way to prove it short of dying and meeting him.
As a little aside on ghosts, it's POSSIBLE that perhaps there exists parallel universes to our own and "ghosts" are merely spots where the separation between worlds are "thin" allowing minor echoes of one world to be observed in the other, but those would not be "ghosts" in the accepted definition of the term. That is as close as I can come to "believing in ghosts."
I'm in the same boat. It's just too bad that believers will immediately run from any on-going discussion whenever they're presented with something that doesn't acknowledge their view of how the world works.
Hi guys, at the moment I just got home from pounding beers and watching Robert DiNero shoot 'em all up in RONIN. :cool: I still will post vids once I search for ones that present specific info that folks are requesting. At the moment, it's a rare clear night, and I'm dying to bring my telescope outside to enjoy the moon, stars, and planets. (1st clear night in a week or two!) If I'm lucky maybe I'll catch a UFO. :D Actually I haven't seen one while practicing amateur astronomy, but in my life I've seen a small handful.
The age-old question is: Why do only a few people see a bunch of UFO's, while most folks see none at all?
The answer: Because the small handful of us, spend MUCH more time stargazing than most folks, who barely spend any time doing that, their whole lives! :D
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
I disagree. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Some scientists do believe in it; Will post vids once I get around to searching for such specific things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Usually the most rational standpoint IMO is to admit that if an alien civilization happened to be OLDER than us, by a few thousand or a few MILLION years, then their understanding of science / physics / biology / etc. would be so much MORE ADVANCED than ours, that they WOULD be able to travel across the universe at their whim, most likely.
Just look at how on Earth, in the past century, we've advanced to where we are today, from the era of horse-and-buggies, coal-burning smog choking the streets, unsafe factory slave labor, etc. Human advancement is EXPONENTIAL. There is no telling what we will be able to do in 100 years, let alone 1,000 years, or a million. Likewise, if an alien civilization had enough of a "head start" ahead of us, then sure they know about wormholes, and how to exploit them to travel great distances in an instant -- hey we humans have been imagining such things for years; Just wait till our technology catches up with our imagination. :cool: Older alien civilizations doubtlessly possess technology and scientific knowledge that we can't even imagine yet; Surely they can bend the laws of physics at their whim, and zoom or warp anywhere they want to, in the universe, in an instant. :D
Hmm. No existing theory of the universe encompasses ghosts? Maybe not (depending on what kind of "theory" you would be looking for), but it seems the majority of humans has believed in ghosts and spirits for thousands of years... It seems nearly every religion has embraced the belief in spirits too, right...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Just because a civilization is older, does not necessarily mean it is also more advanced.
I'll get back to this later.
They've been pounding too many beers. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecco
Seriously, people see UFOs all the time... I've seen a UFO. Note, a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. There's nothing in there that requires it to be a spaceship from another planet. The UFO I saw was in the deserts of Nevada some thirty years ago, and from my perspective on it now, it was in all likelihood an experimental jet. All UFOs have a rational explanation, even if we don't know what it is right this moment.
I said REPUTABLE scientist. ;) :DQuote:
Some scientists do believe in it; Will post vids once I get around to searching for such specific things.
Actually, I probably went too far on that statement. There are a few reputable scientists that believe we are being visited by aliens, but even they don't have the kind of proof science requires to change that from "belief" to "fact".
And such a civilization is somehow always visiting the local yahoo and turning cows inside out? Sorry, that's very hard to believe and requires hard evidence. I find it much easier to believe it's experimental EARTHLY craft being tested in areas where if anyone spots them, they'll be mistaken for "aliens" as a way to help preserve secrecy on the project. Drop a few mutilated cows here and there and Bob's your uncle.Quote:
Usually the most rational standpoint IMO is to admit that if an alien civilization happened to be OLDER than us, by a few thousand or a few MILLION years, then their understanding of science / physics / biology / etc. would be so much MORE ADVANCED than ours, that they WOULD be able to travel across the universe at their whim, most likely.
We have a good handle on the fundamental particles and their interactions. You won't find "ghosts" in any physics books, no matter how hard you look. Belief through time has nothing to do with it. Most long held beliefs get overturned at some point in time as we learn more about the world and the universe around us. I don't care how long people believed the sun was the burning wheel of a chariot pulled by magic goats across the sky, it's not correct. Now much like that video linked earlier, just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I won't accept evidence to the contrary. If someone published verifiable repeatable evidence that ghosts were real, I'd accept it. I can admit when I'm wrong... everyone is wrong about something at times. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and stories by Cletus don't constitute evidence of any sort.Quote:
Hmm. No existing theory of the universe encompasses ghosts? Maybe not (depending on what kind of "theory" you would be looking for), but it seems the majority of humans has believed in ghosts and spirits for thousands of years... It seems nearly every religion has embraced the belief in spirits too, right...?
You honestly think out of the thousands and thousands of sightings that none of them are legit and all can be explained? lol. They can't all be hoaxes or military. Simple odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Oh and what about all the pilots who have reported UFOs? Trained professionals who would know the difference of a conventional aircraft.. witnessing UFOs at extremely high altitudes doing maneuvers impossible for any normal aircraft. The speed that they move generate G-forces that would kill any human being inside. How do you explain that? Must be the military also with their black projects.
And the people coming out who worked at these secret military bases claiming to have seen spacecrafts being brought in and studied and reverse engineered, hell even bodies. They all must be bat shit crazy. Every single one of them.
What about Jesse Marcel (from roswell) who found the wreckage. Says the metal like material could be crumbled or folded and would always spring back to shape. The newspapers changing the story the next day to a weather balloon. Just curious what people's "debunk" of that would be?
Like I said before, way too much evidence for it to be all bullshit or "rationally explained". For the people who debunk every single thing... I laugh.
I'll just repeat myself since you seem to be doing the same: where is the evidence?
You keep saying there's too much evidence, so where is it?
I keep you telling you, but you just seem to be ignoring it or asking for sources. Have you not been reading all the things I am listing? I'm not gonna post a link to "prove" everything I say. Research and you will see all the evidence I am talking about... if you choose to ignore it or not believe, fine that's your choice.
I believe what Olls is saying is he actually wants to see the evidence. For example, the material that was recovered at the Roswell crash site that springs back to it's original shape. He wants either video or photographic evidence of said material. But IIRC the military seized the material he said he found and has never been seen again.
Videos and Photos can be faked. What one person considers evidence, another may not. We disagree.. simple as that. I'm not gonna go crazy trying to convince someone of my beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornholio857
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Not everybody is as gullible.
Why is it so difficult for you to come up with an article or video of something that convinced YOU of the existence of whatever it is that you keep bringing up?
Are you afraid that I'll come up with another source like with the Hill story that completely nullifies any claims you've made? Is it damaging to your beliefs?
Lol your funny. You THINK your video nullifies the story and my claims. Just because someone makes a debunk video doesn't make it true. I really don't care to post an article or video and if I did you probably wouldn't agree with it anyway or find a way to debunk just like with the hill story. If you have done research like you say, then you probably already seen or heard the stuff I would be posting. You can find all the evidence and things I am talking about on your own. I believe what I believe and that's that, If you don't agree.. fine. What don't you get? People can't always believe the same things and agree. Stop looking for a fight cause that seems what you are doing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olls
You choose not to believe... I choose to believe. End of story. No sense in arguing and trying to convince.
Did you even watch the video? What exactly is in the video that is not convincing? The fact that the starmap is far from accurate? The fact that there were no eyewitnesses or evidence whatsoever except for their word?
I'm trying to get a normal discussion going, but you keep getting defensive and personal whenever I ask you to back up your claims. I will never say I don't agree with something you post without backing it up, but then you will have to ACTUALLY post something for me to counter any claim you're making.
Well if we're searching for the most tangible evidence, how about DNA testing of the "Starchild" skull?
Of course, disbelievers / debunkers will simply assume it's all "an elaborate hoax" because that always covers everything which can't be debunked any other way. :D
I know I still need to watch Oll's vid he posted earlier, but thought I'd kick off the offering of the most hard evidence...
Yeah, yeah, elaborate hoax; I know. :D Almost impossibly "elaborate," lol
Quote:
A modified "shotgun" DNA recovery technique has been successfully used to recover coherent segments of the Starchild Skull's nuclear DNA. Of the (approx.) 3 billion base pairs in the skull's genome, several thousand have been recovered. These nuclear DNA fragments have been analyzed by the National Institutes of Health BLAST program, and a substantial percentage of that DNA has "no significant similarity" to any DNA previously found on Earth.
Isn't that the skull of a child with a hydrocephalic condition? There are many like it, albeit less old and therefore not given the same attention.
I've read the DNA reports on Pye's own website. The conclusion of DNA tests say that they could not get consistent results from any given sample. I don't see how this relates to the skull being alien. All it means is that due to the age of the skull it is harder to get consistent test results. The part you quoted is not from any official DNA report, but is someone else's interpretation of the results. Most likely Pye himself.
I'd like you to read this and tell me if I missed any part with which I can reasonably conclude that the skull is indeed alien in origin.
What I think is that most of them are lying for one reason or another. What is more likely - that aliens from another world are flying around leaving bits here and there that mysteriously disappear before scientists can examine them, or that people are telling yet another whopper... "You should have seen the fish I caught! It was big enough to swamp the boat!! But it got away while we were bailing water to stay afloat." People lie at the drop of a hat for almost innumerable reasons. Many people are pathological liers - they literally cannot tell the truth. Occam's Razor applies - the simplest solution is usually the correct one, and until there is PROOF and not UNVERIFIABLE STORIES, the simplest solution is the few people telling the stories are lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by segaddict
You yammer constantly about evidence, but you cannot produce ANYTHING AT ALL beyond a person telling a story - "I saw ...." "There was this ..." "I had this ..., but now I don't." Produce the metallurgic analysis of that metal that springs back into shape - produce photos that aren't shown to be fakes with a simple analysis. Testimony is NOT scientific evidence! It never has been, and never will be!
Well I hope someone will actually watch the video I posted about the skull, and comment about it. The vid explains many ways that it is not simply the skull of a kid with a sickness -- real physical anomalies that can't be traced to a disease. No sinuses are present, at all. The neck would have been half the thickness of a human neck, and would connect to the bottom of the skull, not the back of the skull like humans' do. The eye sockets are more shallow than humans'. The bone of the skull is half the thickness of a human's, but stronger, with microscopic fibers of super-hard material, running over and through the bone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olls
As for the article you linked to, it's true that the DNA has not been 100% mapped yet, but these parts are compelling:
http://www.starchildproject.com/dna.htm
Quote:
A sample of the Starchild Skull’s bone was provided, and in a few weeks the geneticist reported incredible results. Not only had he recovered substantial amounts of nuclear DNA, he had also made a historic discovery when he attempted to catalogue his results. The gel sheet below shows an unmistakable recovery of its nuclear DNA, showing more than a half-dozen strings between 1000 and 2000 base pairs long.
Quote:
Gel sheet showing the recovery of the Starchild Skull's Nuclear DNA
Whenever geneticists want to have an unknown sequence of DNA analyzed, they send it for analysis to the enormous genetic database located at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Maryland. That public-access database is a centralized repository of all the genomic data accumulated by U.S. government funded research, and it now covers every phylum on Earth, from various kinds of viruses and bacteria, to various kinds of crustaceans and fish, to all kinds of animals and plants, including primates and humans.
Quote:
In this report we see that one length of 265 base pairs from the Starchild Skull’s nuclear DNA matches perfectly with a part of a gene on human chromosome #1. This verifies that some of the nuclear DNA from the Starchild is from a human being.
Quote:
In the next screen shot (below) a string of 342 base pairs recovered from the Starchild Skull was analyzed. This time the result reads: "No significant similarity found.
Quote:
Those “reasons why” are an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques. Our geneticist has verified his procedures and replicated his results, indicating that no such mistakes were made.
Quote:
To have recovered a string of base pairs 342 nucleotides long with NO reference in the NIH database is astounding because it means there is NO known earthly corollary for what has been analyzed!
Quote:
Please understand that these results have now been repeated and verified several times. Strings of Starchild DNA over 3000 base pairs long have failed to match with anything in the NIH database.
Occam's Razor: which is more likely - the DNA is alien, or the DNA is corrupted? Corrupted DNA would match perfectly in some places, and not at all in others. Sounds like what they found. Case closed.
But like I quoted, they have repeated the testing and found the same enormous amounts of DNA that still don't match any organism on Earth. They keep getting the same results consistently, so it can't be explained away as simply corrupted DNA...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
At any rate, they are apparently still testing it further, with the goal of mapping the entire genome... I hope they test the hell out of it and bring the most tangible proof yet to the whole world.
Also, what of the National Institute of Health (NIH) being involved -- doesn't the country's authority on DNA testing, lending its independent results, give credibility to the case?
And still, no one can explain away the physical anomalies of the skull, shown in the video, and which I listed some of before. The bone is half the thickness of ours, but stronger, with microscopic fibers grown into the bone. Shallow round eyesockets. No sinuses at ALL. etc.
There are millions of people claiming to seen UFOs or been Abducted. I highly doubt they ALL are lieing. And yes I know every UFO sighting isn't legit. As for evidence, there has been plenty left behind. The metals/implants removed from people were studied by professionals and doctors and found to be very non earthlike, there is videos of the surgeries removing implants and the analysis, thats not evidence? It is to me, but not everyone chooses to believe it. I don't remember every single show or article I have seen, to be able to post links, but i'm sure a quick google search would help. Not everybody has a reason to lie. Some of the people are well known and respected. Check out Stanton Friedman for one. Yes I know he is a Ufologist, but he also has a masters in SCIENCE and is a nuclear physicist before he became a Ufologist. There are lots of things that don't have scientific evidence, but are still known to be true and believed by many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Edit - about the metals being removed form people. What is your explanation for someone having a microscopic, extremely rare piece of metal inside their body attached to nerves? Just curious. In one case they even detected a radio frequency coming from the object and once it was removed from the body it seemed to stop functioning. The operation was done by Dr. Roger Leir. Google or Youtube him and you will see what I am talking about.
All of this can be explained by hydrocephalus, in combination with other cranial deformities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecco
This guy claims to be an expert on skulls, yet couldn't find a way to determine the age of it, while it is in fact possible by looking at sutures between skull bones. Knowing this, I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt.
How has a Pananormal thread morphed into a discussion on aliens?
Lol. Good question. I wouldn't consider UFOs or Aliens paranormal really.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jackal
Legit.Quote:
Paranormal is a general term (coined ca. 1915–1920) that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"
I always thought pananormal = ghosts; thanks for the correction, Olls.
No way could hydrocephalus cause all of the bizarre physical anomalies of that skull. I will have to flatly disagree with that; In fact, hydrocephalus is a very common explanation for skulls with strange traits. Head-binding too. Still, those things can't possibly explain away all of the unique anomalies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olls
For one, the head isn't misshapen the way I'd expect to see a skull misshapen, if it was really the result of many crazy diseases. The Starchild skull is fully symmetrical, even in its "deformities." NO SINUSES AT ALL. Not that a sinus got malformed, but that there are none at all, to begin with. Both eye sockets are exactly the same, exactly symmetrical, but very round and shallow.
The skull's bone resembles tooth enamel more than normal human bone, plus half the width of ours, while being stronger than our bones. Those crazy "fibers" of super-hard material that grew into the bone, all over the skull -- The skull has MANY crazy traits that can't be explained, and certainly not by hydrocephalus...
You and I are no experts on skulls, so it is difficult to get to any reasonable agreement here. I'd like to quote Pye though:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecco
In other words, they will only believe the results if it agrees with their pre-determined conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Pye
I doubt there are MILLIONS claiming to be abducted, and that's the group that is the highest percentage of liers. Seeing a UFO means you just saw something you can't explain. Many people may jump to the conclusion that they were alien spacecrafts, but even if they aren't, they aren't lying, just mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by segaddict
Any proper dimensioned piece of metal will resonate with an applied RF field. That's the whole basis of RFID tags. Even fillings have been known to pick up radio stations. There's nothing about radio signals from embedded fragments of metal that would lead one to the notion of aliens. It's simple physics and antenna theory. As to the signals stopping when removed, have you ever held an old rabbit ear antenna to get better reception? Same thing - contact with something else (in this case, the body) makes the fragment a better match for ambient signals, but is no longer a good enough match when removed from contact. Again, simple antenna theory that anyone can reproduce themselves in the comfort of their living room. :)Quote:
Edit - about the metals being removed form people. What is your explanation for someone having a microscopic, extremely rare piece of metal inside their body attached to nerves? Just curious. In one case they even detected a radio frequency coming from the object and once it was removed from the body it seemed to stop functioning. The operation was done by Dr. Roger Leir. Google or Youtube him and you will see what I am talking about.
As to fragments "attached to nerves," anything embedded in the body will have the body heal around it. Given that most of the body contains nerves, it's not a shock that a fragment would lay against a nerve that then grew around it enough to be attached. That's just the way the body works and is taken advantage of for medical devices like pacemakers. Nothing alien here at all.
You need to be careful when only a few "doctors" or "scientists" make claims that go against the norm. Don't disbelieve them out of hand, but they have to be judged more seriously. Consider the "Y2K scare" - there were "reputable" Computer Scientists from major universities who went on national TV and bald-facedly claimed that toasters would attack people, elevators would plummet out of control, airliners would fall from the sky, etc. You name it, if it had any kind of computer chip in it, they claimed it would fail in disastrous manners... NONE of which occurred. When people make bizarre claims, you need to make them back it up with evidence... more than usual. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Well as for the search of the most tangible evidence of alien life on our planet, I don't think I can top that "Starchild" skull that I posted the video for recently. What could be more tangible than the apparent skull of an alien. lol
The DNA testing by the NIH, the country's authority on DNA testing, says that large portions of DNA turn up as unique compared to the DNA of ALL organisms on Earth. I understand the counter-argument that such "unique" DNA portions must simply be corrupted, but I don't agree that THAT is what the NIH is saying. As the country's authority on such things, I think they would say "corrupted" if the DNA was, or say that it was not recoverable. But NIH doesn't say that; they report finding DNA that they can read, which is unique compared to DNA of all life that we know of. That's what I'm getting out of the DNA info on the Starchild skull, and the NIH involvement brings credibility to the whole case. Clearly the work needs to be finished recovering as much DNA as possible, so I'll be hoping more complete information comes out in the near future, and rocks the global scientific community -- Here's hoping. :D
Also, I won't keep repeating all the unique physical traits of that skull, but personally I'm convinced that no diseases could produce all of those anomalies. Hydrocephalus (and also head-binding) are the catch-all debunk explanations, for ANY strangely-shaped skull. But even if that DID explain the strange shape of the cranium itself -- as hydrocephalus basically means that one's skull is expanded with too much fluid -- there are still no known diseases that could explain all the other strange qualities:
(Bone that resembles our tooth-enamel, more than human bone. The bone is half the width of human bone, but it's stronger, w/ microscopic super-hard fibers grown throughout it -- an anomaly compared to ALL bones found on Earth. Then there is the complete absence of sinuses. Eye sockets are abnormally shallow, and more circular than ours. The teeth have the deep roots of an adult, not a child, despite the "child-size" of the skull. Plus the skull has EXTRA teeth embedded BEHIND its set of teeth -- like how SHARKS have extra teeth that occasionally replace its current set. The neck connected to the BOTTOM of the skull, instead of the BACK of the skull, like our necks are. Etc.)
^All such physical anomalies are shown and explained in the vid I posted earlier. No known diseases could explain all such things, and such traits have never been found on a 2nd skull. It's the only one found with all these traits. It seems skeptics will avoid confronting the most compelling, most tangible evidence of the paranormal, and instead focus on things that are easier to argue against.
Plus, if a multitude of diseases was to blame, I'd expect it to look malformed, misshapen, asymmetrical. Diseases generally don't create mutations that are perfectly symmetrical, as the whole skull is -- so it does not strike me as the product of horrible diseases. Perfect symmetry usually shows that the body is healthy and well-developed. So the skull is symmetrical, as if the being was healthy and well-developed, only with a different kind of body and skeleton. That's what I'm getting out of it. :D
*fingers crossed for more complete DNA analysis to come out in the near future, with crystal-clear proof of alien DNA*
And in search of tangible evidence of alien intelligence, here are crop circles that revealed three DISCS of metal, buried underneath three separate parts of the markings. The discs are inscribed with the same EXACT symbols that make up the crop circles themselves... exactly. The discs were made of BRONZE (with previously unseen qualities for bronze), PURE SILVER, AND GOLD. Sure it's a giant hoax, and the hoaxers wasted thousands of dollars on these metal discs. :D
(Around 2:50) the vid explains traits present of "real" crop circles. Stalks were bent (with a "swollen node" at the bend), but NOT broken or smashed, like when humans make their own circles by stomping on boards. Molecular changes, indications of a "great heat." Radiation levels: 172% HIGHER than the field around it...
Hmm, (around 7:05) it says the circles had swirls of crops in different directions, one swirl on top of the other, but going in opposite directions. :dazed: Also the swirled crops have a "weaving effect" among the stalks... Sure hoaxers are stomping the crops and then weaving them. lol
"Strangely, in every single square foot of this 1993 circle, ONE wheat stalk was left standing, while the rest of the wheat was smashed flat." The British army has tried to duplicate these things and have not been able to. There are more unexplainable details too, but I have to go now, lol. Check it out:
The guy examining the "Starchild" skull is an idiot. While admitting that contamination is present in the samples, he somehow claims that the fragments he cares about (because they don't match existing DNA databases) are somehow "clearly" the Starchild's and not contamination.
You don't decide that CLEARLY something is not contamination because it fits your hypothesis - that's not science! You have to PROVE it is what you claim FIRST, and not just random contamination. There are other many laughable mistakes on the Starchild web page - it's a very pretty page, and quite likely to fool the ignorant into thinking pretty somehow makes it legit.Quote:
In February 2010, the geneticist was provided with a bone sample from the Starchild Skull. In March, he had recovered dozens of fragments of DNA from the sample, much of which resulted from the inevitable bacterial contamination. Nonetheless, others were clearly fragments of the Starchild Skull’s nuclear DNA, so after 11 years of effort—success!
From wikipedia
I'll take Yale Medical School over this yahoo any day.Quote:
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.
Now, as to the video on crop circles, you're quoting a VIDEO of someone telling stories, but they are still just stories and claims. There's nothing backing up their story, like pictures of "Strangely, in every single square foot of this 1993 circle, ONE wheat stalk was left standing, while the rest of the wheat was smashed flat." And "weaving" stalks has been demonstrated by crop circle makers.
You seem to give a lot of credence to videos and web pages that lack clear scientific backing. Stories are stories no matter what their format. If I tell a whooper to Fox for a TV segment, it's no more credible than it was telling it in person or to a reporter for a newspaper. There's still no scientific evidence.
^That is why he is an idiot? Mentioning that they found DNA of "inevitable bacterial contamination," as distinct from DNA from the skull itself? It seems to make sense to me, although I'm no expert on DNA recovery. (I assume no one else here is?) But I don't see the issue with the quote; You're just assuming the unique DNA must be from bacterial contamination. I'm assuming the NIH is competent enough to positively identify DNA of bacterial accumulation, as separate from the object they are actually mapping. For the NIH to say they've found unique DNA OF THE SKULL that doesn't match anything on Earth, means the unique part is NOT from bacteria, OR from corrupted DNA, which just wouldn't be recovered AFAIK. Unique DNA means just that, compared to all known life on Earth. The only element of "authority" in this case, is the name and status of the NIH. I'm not suggesting we all just trust random people.Quote:
In February 2010, the geneticist was provided with a bone sample from the Starchild Skull. In March, he had recovered dozens of fragments of DNA from the sample, much of which resulted from the inevitable bacterial contamination. Nonetheless, others were clearly fragments of the Starchild Skull’s nuclear DNA, so after 11 years of effort—success!
^Well I would be interested if someone would point out more laughable mistakes, bc so far I don't agree with the 1st one you pointed out. :D The comments about the site being "pretty" are just kinda insulting, presumably in good humor though. :D But no, the "prettiness" of the site is the last thing that would convince me of anything. Like I said, the NIH is the only thing resembling a scientific authority, in the case. I don't make assumptions about the guy who owns the skull, or makes the webpage, or whatever else. :D I can also agree that the DNA testing is incomplete so far, and I hope the DNA is completely mapped and released sometime soon, although there seem no updates yet since 2010. :(Quote:
There are other many laughable mistakes on the Starchild web page - it's a very pretty page, and quite likely to fool the ignorant into thinking pretty somehow makes it legit.
The quote about hydrocephalus, well, what can I say. That and head-binding are the standard debunk explanations for strangely shaped skulls, but can't possibly explain all the features -- which were never found on any other skull, ever. But yes, of course there are medical professionals at Yale that would assume it's just from that one disease. There are probably hundreds of professors and students at Yale who would assume the same thing. AND there are probably a handful of people at Yale that would NOT be satisfied w/ that as the explanation -- They wouldn't assume it was an alien skull, sure, but they'd probably think UNKNOWN FACTORS or unknown diseases... There certainly are unexplainable traits of the skull which hydrocephalus can't cover...
As for the video, sure it's a video... of FOX NEWS, the most obnoxiously conservative news source in the country. :D So it's not just a random video; it's a news bite from the most conservative news company. Maybe that will not count for anything to you? That is the closest thing to a trustworthy authority in that case, especially that they would typically be the biggest skeptics for paranormal stuff AFAIK. These are the guys who push everything conservative, and push hate for everything less conservative. :D IMO that lends credibility to their coverage of the case, because the whole thing flies in the face of their typical conservative interests and biases... If you don't feel that Fox News lends credibility to the case, fair enough; I personally hate FOX. :D OK it's not scientific evidence; Just conservative news coverage of "real" crop circles and artifacts...
FOX News are just that: news reporters. They don't make the news, they report it. As Willy said, anyone can come up with a good story. And if it makes for a good story, any news site will be on it. Ratings mean money.
About the skull: it's already been proven that one part of the DNA is of a human mother. The father's DNA is corrupt. What is more likely? That the father's part of the DNA is alien which has had sex with a human female, or that it is simply human? Common sense, please.
Like I said, everything about that skull can be explained by several cranial diseases. Sure, having several diseases at once is rare, but still a lot more likely than the skull being of alien origin.
I'm sure there are plenty of people living on earth right now that have a hydrocephalic condition (1 in 500 humans are diagnosed with this condition, it's not exceptionally rare) + several other diseases. Once again, what is more likely? That the skull is of human origin with hydrocephalus + morgellons disease (explains the skull's fibres, then again those fibres could be anything since the skull is so old already); or that it is alien? Common sense again.
Also, just look up hydrocephalic skulls on google. You'll notice that they're pretty much identical to this so-called starchild's skull.
I rest my case...
The problem is that all the stuff you post is undocumented. If it were a wikipedia page, every single claim would be followed by [citation needed]. "Clearly" is not a citation to a scientific analysis that proves the fragments of DNA they claim are from the Starchild really are and are not bacterial (or other) contamination. Anyone can CLAIM it's clear, but not making the data available to check highly suggests it WASN'T clear at all and they wish to hide the true conclusions of the report, replacing it with their own opinion. At least on the wiki page, you can follow the citations to the actual reports to read them yourself to see what's clear and what isn't.
Not much else to say, except to point out that when you criticize the absurd idea that the skull was from an alien/human hybrid, surely you remember that such hybrid breeding is one of the most prevalent elements of personal reports of experiences with alien beings. Many reports involve people meeting not just alien beings, but also alien/human hybrids -- beings that were clearly a mixture of the two species, with more human traits than typical alien beings. The hybrids are reported to be taller and more muscular, with a little bit of hair, etc.
So anyways, I'm basically just saying that the notion of alien/human hybrids is an old staple of common belief in aliens, and it's a big part of the common conceptions of whatever the heck they're doing on Earth, with our species. The notion of humans and aliens breeding is a staple of common belief, for at least a few decades. The skull is only a recent finding that MIGHT validate all these personal accounts of hybrids, and hybrid programs... Also many personal accounts of abduction involve actual sex with alien beings, or medical procedures to take semen or eggs, for example, so many such accounts tie in with other separate accounts of actually meeting hybrid beings... Just sayin' ;)
Yes, and that's still just anecdotes. That's a starting point, not the conclusion. I like that they're trying to use DNA with the Starchild skull, but I don't like the way the "official" web page is handling the results. The reports themselves never say anything at all about the fragments being alien or even from the skull. Those are conclusions reached by Pye on his own after reading the results. Context is important in science, and he's removing as much context as possible from his assessments.
Well in hopes of finding more credible sources of info on the "Starchild" skull, I checked Wikipedia and there seems a lack of independent sources, even there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull
I certainly do agree that there needs to be more independent research and verification of the skull and its anomalies. Wiki lists a few such traits that hydrocephalus doesn't cover (although unknown diseases will become the next thing blamed, in many people's perspectives).
Also, I first learned about the Starchild skull last year, and I had hoped by now that there had been more extensive, independent research published about it! I'll still be hoping and waiting for new independent research to verify its "alien" DNA, or its bizarre physical traits...
*fingers crossed*