39 replies to this topic

[Scouser]

Qoais, on 28 March 2010 - 12:25 AM, said:

Edit:  Just went back and read the comments for the article.  I asked there, but I'll ask here as well.  Why would only the male DNA deteriorate?

It wouldn't.

If the father was Alien, we have no way of knowing what his DNA looks like, that's why they can't find it.

Common sense eh?

[1963]

Scouser, on 01 April 2010 - 06:26 PM, said:

It wouldn't.

If the father was Alien, we have no way of knowing what his DNA looks like, that's why they can't find it.

Common sense eh?

                                                                                                     Do you mean,'Nephilim',Scouser?..I read about them a while back.!...But were'nt they suposed to be giants?...Another good story!..But just a story!!....No, this ones not quite that spectacular,IMO mate.....Probably just some sort of horrible birth defect.!...In my mind,...900years ago, this young native girl fell pregnant,and gave birth to this unfortunate little child, a child that made The Elephant Man look decent.!....And being 900 years ago, she had to flee the village,because the rest of the village, scared, ..shunned them, and she was probably in fear of their lives !through the villagers ignorance of the childs condition!...She fled to the hills, found a home in the caves. Somehow managed to raise the poor child for about 5 years, until, through either natural causes or...'who knows?'...well let's say a tradgedy occured..! ..and the rest is....history!!!....Or Something Like That ! ..Well ! It's as likely as Mr. Pye's story...IMO.

[danydandan]

Scouser, on 01 April 2010 - 06:26 PM, said:

It wouldn't.

If the father was Alien, we have no way of knowing what his DNA looks like, that's why they can't find it.

Common sense eh?

You want common sence
We know what our dna looks like so if there were any discrepancies , all you'd have to do is compare and contrast.

[Mattshark]

Scouser, on 01 April 2010 - 06:21 PM, said:

I heard the mother was human, but they could not identify the DNA of the father.  That makes sense when you consider that in most religions the sons of god (the dads) mated with the human women.

No, a fringe loon claimed this with no evidence saying that they had secretly told him and they weren't ready to release the information, then claimed that it was on NIH (none of which is true, Lloyd Pye is just a liar) and decided to ignore the fact the the maternal and paternal halotype of the starchild are known and known to be human and native American halotypes.

If you are going to get your science from non-scientific sources, expect rubbish.

[Scouser]

Mattshark, on 02 April 2010 - 12:39 AM, said:

No, a fringe loon claimed this with no evidence saying that they had secretly told him and they weren't ready to release the information, then claimed that it was on NIH (none of which is true, Lloyd Pye is just a liar) and decided to ignore the fact the the maternal and paternal halotype of the starchild are known and known to be human and native American halotypes.

If you are going to get your science from non-scientific sources, expect rubbish.

I'll admit i have only seen the one side of this story, the skeptic view is quite hard to find.

Any chance you can direct me to some sites that can show some scientists proving that both the mother and father are human?

[Mattshark]

Scouser, on 02 April 2010 - 11:08 PM, said:

I'll admit i have only seen the one side of this story, the skeptic view is quite hard to find.

Any chance you can direct me to some sites that can show some scientists proving that both the mother and father are human?

Sorry, my mistake here, they have the childs halotype © which is Native American, the body found with it was halotype A which is also Native American, but not the childs mother.
Well, you don't prove anything in science, only evidence. No evidence, no case.
http://web.archive.o...m/SCSreport.PDF
Full report on the genetic analysis.


I would advise scepticism personally (your British, it is c not k), scientist tend to know far more about their subjects than some bloke making baseless claims. Real science is done in journals, which are available but unless you have university access, it can be expensive.

Lloyd Pye has as much scientific value however as "spot the dog".

What should also be pointed out is the ridiculous levels on unlikeness of any alien species being able to breed with a human.

Edited by Mattshark, 03 April 2010 - 12:32 AM.

[Scouser]

Mattshark, on 03 April 2010 - 12:30 AM, said:

Sorry, my mistake here, they have the childs halotype © which is Native American, the body found with it was halotype A which is also Native American, but not the childs mother.
Well, you don't prove anything in science, only evidence. No evidence, no case.
http://web.archive.o...m/SCSreport.PDF
Full report on the genetic analysis.


I would advise scepticism personally (your British, it is c not k), scientist tend to know far more about their subjects than some bloke making baseless claims. Real science is done in journals, which are available but unless you have university access, it can be expensive.

Lloyd Pye has as much scientific value however as "spot the dog".

What should also be pointed out is the ridiculous levels on unlikeness of any alien species being able to breed with a human.

What is a halotype?

I only got a C in Science!

[Mattshark]

Scouser, on 04 April 2010 - 04:30 PM, said:

What is a halotype?

I only got a C in Science!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype

Here you go, probably explains in a lot less convoluted way than I would!

[socrates.junior]

Saying that the DNA is "not human" implies that extraterrestrials would be DNA-based. Which is a large leap in logic. And probably incorrect.

   Anyway...

[1963]

socrates.junior, on 04 April 2010 - 05:22 PM, said:

Saying that the DNA is "not human" implies that extraterrestrials would be DNA-based. Which is a large leap in logic. And probably incorrect.

   Anyway...

                                                                                                  I'm not saying that the DNA, will ultimately prove to be anything else but human!..But, in the 'extremely unlikely' happenstance that,..it does..!Then, what would you think would be the outcome?....A well endowed ant!..or perhaps...an ancestor of Henry the human ape..!  ..What i'm saying, is that if it were proven,..'NOT' to be a human father..! Then,..E.T would be , as good a guess as any!   or am I wrong.?

[socrates.junior]

1963, on 04 April 2010 - 06:06 PM, said:

I'm not saying that the DNA, will ultimately prove to be anything else but human!..But, in the 'extremely unlikely' happenstance that,..it does..!Then, what would you think would be the outcome?....A well endowed ant!..or perhaps...an ancestor of Henry the human ape..!  ..What i'm saying, is that if it were proven,..'NOT' to be a human father..! Then,..E.T would be , as good a guess as any!   or am I wrong.?

   That's not exactly what I was saying. I'm saying that alien life (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that there is alien life.) is almost definitively totally different from anything we could imagine. In other words, aliens might not have DNA.

   Savvy?

[1963]

socrates.junior, on 04 April 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

That's not exactly what I was saying. I'm saying that alien life (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that there is alien life.) is almost definitively totally different from anything we could imagine. In other words, aliens might not have DNA.

   Savvy?

                                                                                                    "Yes" I do savvy!..your saying that "you know!", that the Alien(that, you dont even believe in!)..has DNA, that...'"Almost definitively totally different from anything we could imagine."quote!....Well 'Socrates', answer me this....If there are No' aliens?...then how could their DNA be different?!..And if they do exist, but have No' DNA,....Then would'nt that account for the missing parental data!!....I am not arguing that this unfortunate child is the offspring of ET....! but your reasoning is flawed...IMO

[socrates.junior]

1963, on 05 April 2010 - 12:13 AM, said:

"Yes" I do savvy!..your saying that "you know!", that the Alien(that, you dont even believe in!)..has DNA, that...'"Almost definitively totally different from anything we could imagine."quote!....Well 'Socrates', answer me this....If there are No' aliens?...then how could their DNA be different?!..And if they do exist, but have No' DNA,....Then would'nt that account for the missing parental data!!....I am not arguing that this unfortunate child is the offspring of ET....! but your reasoning is flawed...IMO

   I'm not saying there are no aliens. First of all. We haven't found any though, and as that hasn't happened, we don't know what they resemble. However, logic tells us that they won't be identical to us, movies and books notwithstanding. In fact, as I said before, they probably wouldn't have DNA. Life takes many forms, and it's extremely hubristic (is that a word? I think it is. the NSB taught me a wee bit.) to pontificate that it would be exactly like us.

   To answer the next point. I'll take it slowly, since you didn't understand my earlier point. If our hypothetical alien didn't have DNA, and wasn't physically similar to a human, how do you expect it to, uh, copulate with humanity? It would be impossible. The "missing parental data" would be easy to explain. There COULD NOT BE an alien parent.

   My reasoning is not flawed. Thank you.

   -socrates

[1963]

socrates.junior, on 05 April 2010 - 12:54 AM, said:

I'm not saying there are no aliens. First of all. We haven't found any though, and as that hasn't happened, we don't know what they resemble. However, logic tells us that they won't be identical to us, movies and books notwithstanding. In fact, as I said before, they probably wouldn't have DNA. Life takes many forms, and it's extremely hubristic (is that a word? I think it is. the NSB taught me a wee bit.) to pontificate that it would be exactly like us.

   To answer the next point. I'll take it slowly, since you didn' t understand my earlier point. If our hypothetical alien didn't have DNA, and wasn't physically similar to a human, how do you expect it to, uh, copulate with humanity? It would be impossible. The "missing parental data" would be easy to explain. There COULD NOT BE an alien parent.

   My reasoning is not flawed. Thank you.

   -socrates

                                                                                                   "Hubristic"!.Yes!..That is an exellent word,...To describe a person that would claim to know that a hypothetical being(or Alien,in this case),  ..could NOT resemble or have a similar DNA to a human being, and could not therefore copulate!!....Bare in mind.. that the difference between our stance on the Starchild is that where you say....Impossible!.. I say....Improbable!!..I think that we should draw a closure on this particular part of the debate!!  

[socrates.junior]

1963, on 05 April 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

"Hubristic"!.Yes!..That is an exellent word,...To describe a person that would claim to know that a hypothetical being(or Alien,in this case),  ..could NOT resemble or have a similar DNA to a human being, and could not therefore copulate!!....Bare in mind.. that the difference between our stance on the Starchild is that where you say....Impossible!.. I say....Improbable!!..I think that we should draw a closure on this particular part of the debate!!  

   Okay, that's a good idea. I guess we've exchanged the opinions we hold. I'm not saying that I know for a fact, but statistical, logical, and empirical evidence kinda supports what I said.

   Anyway, I just noticed something. So, are you saying that I'm hubristic?