6153 replies to this topic

[quillius]

lost_shaman, on 06 June 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

All I can say is that I've never heard of it except in discussion of the 10pm PL's. As far as I can tell there is no mention of anything like this before or after that I've been able to find.

Ok thank you. I too could not find anything anywhere about its validity as standard practise.....

[lost_shaman]

quillius, on 06 June 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

If you saw a physical craft as opposed to a light and ET jumped out said hello then flew off, surely you would not need any further proof of visitation, would you? I am sure it would raise a thousand other questions though.

What I witnessed looked very physical, just not normal. In fact crazy looking. It was too small for an Alien to ride inside. So from my POV maybe Aliens shouldn't be the answer to the UFO Phenomena.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 05 June 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

Do you think Sky has won anything more than brownie points with the more credulous posters? From what I can see, anyone capable of following the debate is disgusted in the tactics displayed. If Sky had truth on his side, he would not draw the distaste from the more academic posters that he does. All it would take in the Phoenix example is countering the math, but we get endless tales of day jaunts to Phoenix and how he saw some flares half a century ago on the other side of the world. Considering the detail and work that has gone into presenting the case for flares, it woud take a team of Johnny Cochranes to make the presented opposition to that conclusion so much as considerable for a moment. The repetition is the worst, you just say something and move on but ohh no, not with our friend. In that case it is repeat oneself until the opposition is plain worn out from the tirade, or the opposition simply leaves in disgust. Then claim victory. You said that the belief position in this instance was unable to be defended, that simply means the truth did win.

Hey Psyche, I never said that he did win anything?!? and also the bolded part, I never said a belief position in this instance was unable to be defended. I am saying if 'ones defence is not as good as the 'top team of lawyers' would truth succeed.

psyche101, on 05 June 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

Yes indeed he would win, if he did have a case, and how simple would it be to disprove the math and throw serious doubt back into the equation? Math is right, or math is wrong. No gray area there. What we started with was serious doubt, and the mystery has been removed by Boon, Lost Shaman, Cz and Perc. Only one is trying to keep the mystery alive, but has nothing more than jumping out from shadows and going BOO for backup. If you go back over the thread, you should notice that there is no need to "swing blindly" the countering information has been requested politely on a vast number of instances, but each request was fobbed off with silly anecdotes of day jaunts to Phoenix and ancient camp fire war stories. As this nonsense continued, tempers flared, until the resident cheerleader had to step in and force the respite Sky so needed to as you say "regroup". I have to say I am disappointed in your pity, it is unwarranted. This is a discussion forum, and you get what you give. It is as simple as that. And if you take note of the lowest common denominator in this equation, the error becomes quite apparent.
I cannot give a better answer than the replies that you have already seen from Aquatus1 and Lost Shaman, but I can say that surely you have seen Aquatus1 saying exactly this for pages now? In essence, put up or shut up? Only the case for flares has "put up".

What I am seeing here is the more stringent believers are super cheesed off that there is nothing to support a case for ET in thousands of pages of "Best Evidence" and as each case gets shot down in flames the level of nastiness increases. I feel that the stringent believers think that what they deem as skeptics should not even have so much as one thread on this forum and are doing their best to chase them off. Honestly, I can say thank goodness the believers are represented by 2 very different camps. A mindset instigated in the 50's, and still prevalent today.

I dont fully agree. I do agree with some points, but as I said I do not believe that someone defending a position of truth (not belief) would neccesarily win the debate. If I was to debate with my child that 210 + 210 = 500, I assure you I could win the argument, yes she could just disprove the maths but at 4years old that may be tough. I must clarify I am not saying this is the case here. I was more trying to demonstrate that the better debaters will usually win not the truth IMO.

So we are left with hope that some of the more 'academic' (as you put it) posters do care in uncovering the truth as opposed to just winning the arguments/debates.

I do not see it as stringent believers are cheesed off. I may not be a stringent believer or fall into the catergory you are referring to (or maybe you think I am) but either way I am a believer, but I must admit for the most part I feel 'stupid' for believing and then when asked prove it. I simply cant.

what are the two different camps you allude to by the way?

[quillius]

lost_shaman, on 06 June 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

What I witnessed looked very physical, just not normal. In fact crazy looking. It was too small for an Alien to ride inside. So from my POV maybe Aliens shouldn't be the answer to the UFO Phenomena.

if you witnessed the same thing now would your take on it be different? What I mean is you describe it as 'crazy looking' and 'very physical', but you have obviously gained much more knowledge since, so the question is would it have as big an impact?

Dont really understand the word 'shouldnt' in this context LS?? Surely it is what it is, or they are what they are.
'cant be the answer' 'are unlikely to be the answer' 'maybe the answer' I understand but 'shouldnt' ??

[aquatus1]

It is true that the better debater can usually win, regardless of the side of the argument they are on.

That said, the reason they are the better debater is because they are capable of showing the evidence and the support for the conclusion.  One can argue that the defense has limited capabilities, but where does that leave you?  You haven't determined that the defense actually knows the truth; all you have done is acknowledged that they could know the truth.  Big deal.

At some point, one has to acknowledge that, no matter how good the lawyers are, and how much we hate lawyers and how much we love underdogs...sometimes the lawyers are right, and sometimes the underdogs are underdogs for a reason.

[lost_shaman]

quillius, on 06 June 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

if you witnessed the same thing now would your take on it be different? What I mean is you describe it as 'crazy looking' and 'very physical', but you have obviously gained much more knowledge since, so the question is would it have as big an impact?

Dont really understand the word 'shouldnt' in this context LS?? Surely it is what it is, or they are what they are.
'cant be the answer' 'are unlikely to be the answer' 'maybe the answer' I understand but 'shouldnt' ??

No, I think if I saw the same thing tonight, I'd still not be sure as to it's true nature.

Also, I said "maybe Aliens shouldn't" be the answer. The ETH has never been my main motivation and my own sighting doesn't suggest an "Alien" could have 'hopped' out and said "hi". That is not the criteria I use to attempt to understand the Phenomena.

It's really that simple. It's the Phenomena itself that motivates me not the ETH.

[quillius]

aquatus1, on 06 June 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

It is true that the better debater can usually win, regardless of the side of the argument they are on.

That said, the reason they are the better debater is because they are capable of showing the evidence and the support for the conclusion.  One can argue that the defense has limited capabilities, but where does that leave you?  You haven't determined that the defense actually knows the truth; all you have done is acknowledged that they could know the truth.  Big deal.

At some point, one has to acknowledge that, no matter how good the lawyers are, and how much we hate lawyers and how much we love underdogs...sometimes the lawyers are right, and sometimes the underdogs are underdogs for a reason.

If I could determine that the defence actually knows the truth then it would be game over wouldnt it? at least on a personal level.

I should think that not just sometimes but most times the lawyers are right.
With regards to your comments 'underdogs are underdogs for a reason' not sure what you mean, if we are talking of 'lack of scientific evidence' (that we have access to) then yes there is a reason underdogs are underdogs. But are you saying they are underdogs because of the opposition who have a higher probability of winning? that is actually what determines the underdog isnt it?

[quillius]

lost_shaman, on 06 June 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

No, I think if I saw the same thing tonight, I'd still not be sure as to it's true nature.

Also, I said "maybe Aliens shouldn't" be the answer. The ETH has never been my main motivation and my own sighting doesn't suggest an "Alien" could have 'hopped' out and said "hi". That is not the criteria I use to attempt to understand the Phenomena.

It's really that simple. It's the Phenomena itself that motivates me not the ETH.

inetresting thanks.

I still dont understand the use of the word 'shouldnt' to be honest but I wont get hung up on it. I never suggested it as a criteria but was merely making the point that if it was the case then it would undoubtedly make you view the situation differently.

And I know your position and your motivation adn would never suggest you are in search of ET

[lost_shaman]

quillius, on 06 June 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

And I know your position and your motivation and would never suggest you are in search of ET

If I could find E.T., I'd be the first to say it! So far that's just not the case.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in the UFO Phenomena and the two really are not one and the same.

[mcrom901]

lost_shaman, on 06 June 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

All I can say is that I've never heard of it except in discussion of the 10pm PL's. As far as I can tell there is no mention of anything like this before or after that I've been able to find.

then in that case what makes it oddly normal without ant further repercussions?

i suppose just like the tutors....

[DONTEATUS]

210+210=420 and some people know that just may = 500 You know tha people these days will pay anything for pot !
It may also be the reason that so many people see E.T ?
Just a thought !

[Kali74]

Heya, I just wanted to address some of the replies. I wanted to say that it does seem that Lloyd Pye wants this to be an extra-terrestrial skull however that should not deter science nor curiosity in the manner that it has. Naturally it is not difficult to get the nutters excited about even the most mundane of things but I would again say this should never be a detterent to science.I probably could have been more clear in my post, however I am not a scientist or doctor or even hold any degree of any kind
Something that really perked up my ears during Amy Vickers radio interview was her mentioning (I'm being very loose here with terminolgy) that should a human fetus have this exact DNA it would spotaneously abort as the tissue could not hold itself together. I will say that while I also do want this to be an extra-terrestrial skull if it is found not to be it could be a key to a new and better understanding of extreme DNA anomalies. The proof against all of this being woo-woo to me will be if "they" do in fact release all of thie new information for peer review, I sincerely hope science does not scoff at this skull because of it's associated history since being discovered.

Slave2Fate, on 06 June 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:

Which I think is the point of the whole thing in a nutshell. Although it may be unknown what could cause a human skull to be malformed in such a manner there hasn't been anything presented yet that is definitively outside the potential scope of human genetics. It is definitely worthy of further research however if the research is skewed toward an 'alien' bias then I have my reservations if only because it clouds objectivity.

Of course it could be a previously unknown deformity, however the DNA is indictive of not being human or simian or any known life form on earth...so to me if it is not extra-terrestrial it very well could be a now extinct unknown species. I am 100% confident that this will be the label it recieves because even if found to be unlike anything on earth it still cannot be proven to be from elsewhere because it was found here. So again science will be able to say there is no proof of life outside of earth, but to me it will be physical proof of what I already believe. Not scientific of me I know, but tough cookies

booNyzarC, on 06 June 2011 - 03:58 AM, said:

*snip*

From that kind of "not so stellar" standpoint all I can honestly offer is the following.  I truly don't know if any portion of the presentation is valid.  This may come as a surprise to some...  but I'm extremely skeptical of the claims.  I would love for them to turn out as true, but I won't put any faith in it without verification.  That being said, and with my limited knowledge of DNA, I consider the research potentially worthwhile.

I'm kind of glad that you brought this up again because I wonder if any other members would have any input on this "new" data from 2010.  I seem to recall that it was briefly discussed late last year, when I brought it up after watching Lloyd Pye's infomercial (erm... I mean... presentation...  in Austria or Switzerland or something...), and the consensus was basically that the initial testing had confirmed the DNA to be human.  Not much attention was paid to the other parts which were "unmatched."

Hey one of my favorite skeptics I've missed you too lol
The updates are as recent as 2011 so I hope you will take a look, I too have zero understanding of DNA however the site is laid out in technical and non-technical terms and is fairly easy to read the comparisons and the why's and why-not's.

Quote

1999 and 2003 DNA TEST RESULTS
In Brief: In 1999 the Starchild Skull was tested by the BOLD forensic teaching lab in Canada. They thought they had recovered human nuclear DNA from the "Y" chromosome, proving that the Starchild was a normal human male. This result was later determined to be a contamination.

In 2003 the Starchild Project was able to arrange another DNA test, this time by Trace Genetics, the ancient DNA lab that had tested the Kennewick Man. They were able to recover mitochondrial DNA, but not nuclear DNA. This left two options--either the nuclear DNA was too degraded to recover, or the DNA was too different from that of a human to be detected by the human primers they were using to test it
More here

Quote

Starchild Skull DNA Analysis Report—2011

SUMMARY:
Early in 2011, a geneticist attempting to recover Starchild Skull DNA identified four fragments that matched with human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Comparing those fragments with matching fragments from human mtDNA produced an astonishing result. In every comparison, the Starchild presented many more nucleotide differences than are normally found among humans. In one comparison detailed in this report, the compared segments of human mtDNA came from one of its most highly conserved regions. Across 167 nucleotides in this segment, only 1 single variation is found among the 33 human haplogroups. In contrast, the same length of Starchild mtDNA has 17 differences! Of those 17, a significant number should be confirmed by multiple repetitions of the test. If several are confirmed (which is highly likely), it will be enough evidence to establish a new earthly species. [In 2010 just such a new prehuman species, Denisova, was confirmed by having a significant number of differences in its mtDNA. This will be explained later in this report.]
More here and a laymans explanation by Lloyd Pye (worth a read regardless of his angle) here

psyche101, on 06 June 2011 - 04:46 AM, said:

Well said, and good catch. This is the ETH at work yet again. Assume it is interplanetary, then go from there. Much research must be held back decades by such "open mindedness". I found the Starchild Skull interesting, but lost interest when I saw all the kooks attaching themselves to it. To take the earliest known case of Progeria and then parade it around as some sort of sideshow artifact is beyond reproach IMHO. Medical science should be in possession of this. Not some personal game show. This is no doubt not the last we will hear of the Starchild Skull. Every time someone tells Pye how it is, he just goes somewhere else and starts the circus up again.

I think the best evidence to date, is still the WOW! signal.

Hello psyche101, your points are valid as always even if somewhat jaded. I agree that woo-woo can hurt research but I also think the blame falls equally on the shoulders of nutters and science. Science should not raise it's nose so high and so easily in the air as it does. The starchild skull is a perfect example of science being too snooty IMO, here is an amazing example of something unkown in the truest sense of the word. Anthropologists as well as geneticists should be drooling over this but they are not. Any and all research done is the result of the woo-woo man, Lloyd Pye never giving up on this. Even if it turns out to be terrerestrial it cannot ever be mundane and if you would read the research on the site I think you would agree to at least the skull not being mundane.


Just a quick personal note to you skeptics, while you may frustrate me to no end as a believer, people like you keep people like me from floating off into fairytales and I thank-you for that. I hope I have returned the favor in some way.


Edit: Fixed link

Edited by Kali74, 06 June 2011 - 01:49 PM.

[The Religious Hoax]

I have yet to see any of the skeptics address the genetic research that was performed.  Since the Starchild Project's thesis revolves around a genetic premise, why are we talking about birth defects?

I know a bit about PCR & and gene amplification since I sold these lab instruments for 7 years.  PCR amplification only works when the correct enzyme (primer) reaches the correct annealing point (heat).  PCR is pretty straightforward when you know you are dealing with human DNA. The  biggest tip-off for me in this study was how the Starchild's DNA didn't react with the same primer (enzyme) on the human sample.  

The amount of genetic anomalies in the Starchild sample definitely warrants further study.  Now that they can start sequencing this with capillary electrophoresis, all they need now is time and money to sequence this entire genome.  As it stands now, there are no other base pair matches in the NIH genetic database, and the amount of differing nucleotides (both parents genes) suggests we are dealing with either a new species of human, or an alien lifeform.

The genetic labs appear to be very legit, so this is worth taking seriously

Edited by The Religious Hoax, 06 June 2011 - 02:11 PM.

[mcrom901]

DONTEATUS, on 06 June 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

210+210=420 and some people know that just may = 500 You know tha people these days will pay anything for pot !
It may also be the reason that so many people see E.T ?
Just a thought !

it is di x-factor.... that's why sagan was hiding the et evidence....

Quote

Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[49][50] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, his friend Lester Grinspoon disclosed this information to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999 brought media attention to this aspect of Sagan's life.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Carl_Sagan


eta....

perhaps something stronger might have worked....

Edited by mcrom901, 06 June 2011 - 02:16 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Copasetic, on 06 June 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

My opinion in coming. Personally I feel that congenital hydrocephalus is the most likely explanation. The reasons given on the "starchildproject" website for dismissing hydrocephalus are frankly, pathetic and really point out a lot of errors in gross anatomy.

*snip*

The bottom line is though, these starchild people already have their answer (its alien) and anything contrary is going be dismissed. You're not going to get the real details of "expert" evaluations (if they really had them) nor do I think Pye and the owners are all that eager to let real unbiased professionals go poking about.

My thoughts anyway, for those that were wondering  

Many thanks for your perspective copa.  As always, reading through your posts is educational.  Between this and the earlier link from psyche I can definitely see that from a physical anatomical standpoint the starchild skull is potentially consistent with either Progeria or hydrocephalus.

By any chance do you know if there has been any genetic testing and cataloging of the unfortunate children who've been diagnosed with either of these conditions?  I would suspect that there has been, but I wouldn't know the first place to look.  I wonder how such tests would measure against the sequencing of the starchild skull?

Kali74, on 06 June 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

Heya, I just wanted to address some of the replies.

*snip*

Something that really perked up my ears during Amy Vickers radio interview was her mentioning (I'm being very loose here with terminolgy) that should a human fetus have this exact DNA it would spotaneously abort as the tissue could not hold itself together. I will say that while I also do want this to be an extra-terrestrial skull if it is found not to be it could be a key to a new and better understanding of extreme DNA anomalies. The proof against all of this being woo-woo to me will be if "they" do in fact release all of thie new information for peer review, I sincerely hope science does not scoff at this skull because of it's associated history since being discovered.


Of course it could be a previously unknown deformity, however the DNA is indictive of not being human or simian or any known life form on earth...so to me if it is not extra-terrestrial it very well could be a now extinct unknown species. I am 100% confident that this will be the label it recieves because even if found to be unlike anything on earth it still cannot be proven to be from elsewhere because it was found here. So again science will be able to say there is no proof of life outside of earth, but to me it will be physical proof of what I already believe. Not scientific of me I know, but tough cookies

All good points Kali, but I wonder if you could link to the interview with Amy Vickers?  I didn't see it after a quick look at the site.  I didn't spend a lot of time looking, so it may have been right under my nose.

It does seem that this is the only direction that Pye can go for any chance at validation.  I'm curious about how that paper will be received as it goes through peer review.  If it isn't received well I suspect we won't get all of the details from Pye's web site, but I guess time will tell.

One thing about Pye that stands out to me is that he doesn't like alternate explanations.  He holds a very high disdain for any and all naysayers.  As I was looking into this before I couldn't help but notice the way he scoffed at science and even at wikipedia.  Frankly, I don't trust the man.  If others who are more qualified can bring more credibility to the project it has a higher chance of bearing fruit.  Perhaps this Amy Vickers or the folks who have done the latest DNA testing can do that.

Kali74, on 06 June 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

Hey one of my favorite skeptics I've missed you too lol
The updates are as recent as 2011 so I hope you will take a look, I too have zero understanding of DNA however the site is laid out in technical and non-technical terms and is fairly easy to read the comparisons and the why's and why-not's.
*snip*

Thanks for the 2011 quotes.  I hadn't read those and will have to go back to your links and take another look when I have more time.

Kali74, on 06 June 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

Just a quick personal note to you skeptics, while you may frustrate me to no end as a believer, people like you keep people like me from floating off into fairytales and I thank-you for that. I hope I have returned the favor in some way.

Thanks Kali and yes, for me anyway, you've returned the favor.  The perspective you give is always extremely balanced and honest which are qualities I hold in the highest respect.