DNA analysis of the elongated skulls

[lilthor]

1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

No, they certainly don't lilthor. You are wrong. Cranial deformation was common throughout South America. Such skulls are now in museums all over the world. The silly twaddle Foerster tried to pass off about cranial volume is an obvious fraud, as anyone familiar with human anatomy would know (Harte contributed a good post about this earlier). Look at the link in my previous post. There's been archaeology at Paracas for almost a century now.

 

Yeah, I guess you're right. That's why I have two college degrees and work at a museum. I'm so afraid of facts. Thanks for outing me.

There has been much more noted than cranial volume which set these skulls apart, including jaw and forehead structure and sutures...you should look into it.

DNA analysis would tell the real story...I'm surprised you don't favor that.

[kmt_sesh]

17 minutes ago, lilthor said:

These skulls stand apart from indigenous Peruvian remains in many obvious ways...

I should've just stressed this before. Based on your knowledge of ancient South American cultures and burial customs, exactly how do the Paracas sj=kulls stand apart in many obvious ways?

I state flat out that my area of emphasis is Egypt and I don't know as much about South American history, so now that you've made this statement, you can tell us clearly and in as much detail as you wish how the Paracas skulls are such rarities. Here's your chance. You could really contribute to this discussion.

[kmt_sesh]

6 minutes ago, lilthor said:

There has been much more noted than cranial volume which set these skulls apart, including jaw and forehead structure and sutures...you should look into it.

DNA analysis would tell the real story...I'm surprised you don't favor that.

All right, that somewhat addresses my previous post. Do you have credible links from reputable scientists and/or institutes that address these anomalies? Has someone with proper training and experience examined these skulls?

No rush. This is probably my last post in here for the night. Mummies need their sleep, too.

[lilthor]

16 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I should've just stressed this before. Based on your knowledge of ancient South American cultures and burial customs, exactly how do the Paracas sj=kulls stand apart in many obvious ways?

I state flat out that my area of emphasis is Egypt and I don't know as much about South American history, so now that you've made this statement, you can tell us clearly and in as much detail as you wish how the Paracas skulls are such rarities. Here's your chance. You could really contribute to this discussion.

I would rather you (the Expert) show us photos of other skulls from different parts of the Americas and around the world which match the Paracas examples and clearly expose them as the "garden variety" ancient human skulls you claim they are.

We can then compare them point by point.  OK?

Edited September 26, 2017 by lilthor

[lilthor]

6 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Has someone with proper training and experience examined these skulls?

Funny, that's the point I had made.

Either they find these skulls incredibly boring and unworthy of study (unlikely), or they are simply afraid of what they might find.

[cormac mac airt]

56 minutes ago, lilthor said:

That's a lot of conjecture with little to back it up.

These skulls absolutely scream for deeper analysis and the silence from orthodox archaeology is telling.

Here's a bit more, in your own words:  "their own venerated experts are too scared to seek the truth". No actual facts are in your statement. As has already been shown with the similar "Starchild" skull, which BTW has shown to be completely human, there is no reason at all to believe that the Paracas skull/s are any different. So why should any reputable geneticist be interested in performing real DNA tests on something that the fringe has already associated with similar items proven to be of human origin? The only excuse one has left to support what would be an apparent waste of time and expense is so the fringe can "throw enough crap against the wall to see what sticks". That's not science, that's wishful thinking. 

cormac

Edited September 26, 2017 by cormac mac airt
Clarification

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Read the Snopes (RationalWiki) quote in my preceding post. It's a gem. Foerster is the one who originally claimed the "DNA findings." Most of us know that already. What I didn't realize is that Foerster released the "DNA results"...on Facebook. And wouldn't give anyone the "geneticist's" name. LOL Isn't this what all reliable researchers do?

Honestly, how do people fall for this? It's just painful.

I've read it before. IIRC his "geneticist", or at least one he's covertly used before, is none other that Sasquatch DNA "Expert" Dr. Melba (I can't tell the difference between 'possum and human DNA) Ketchum. Nothing there to instill any kind of confidence in either of their claims.

cormac

[lilthor]

7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Here's a bit more, in your own words:  "their own venerated experts are too scared to seek the truth". No actual facts are in your statement. As has already been shown with the similar "Starchild" skull, which BTW has shown to be completely human, there is no reason at all to believe that the Paracas skull/s are any different. So why should any reputable geneticist be interested in performing real DNA tests on something that the fringe has already associated with similar items proven to be of human origin? The only excuse one has left to support what would be an apparent waste of time and expense is so the fringe can "throw enough crap against the wall to see what sticks". That's not science, that's wishful thinking. 

cormac

You seem to be hung up on the "human vs alien" thing.  That's unnecessary.

Someone of your background ought to be interested in what DNA analysis can tell us about the genetic heritage of all ancient humans.  Why not these?

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, lilthor said:

You seem to be hung up on the "human vs alien" thing.  That's unnecessary.

Someone of your background ought to be interested in what DNA analysis can tell us about the genetic heritage of all ancient humans.  Why not these?

That's the original claim, deal with it. 

If there was strong and verifiable scientific reason to believe that the Paracas and other associated skulls fell outside the known haplogroups shown below you might have a point:

Now, can you show beyond "I just want to know" a valid scientific reason to believe that the requisite skulls DO in fact fall outside the known haplogroups, taking into account that the previously mentioned and similar Starchild skull DOES NOT? If not you're more interested in satisfying your own personal curiousity than seeing such tests utilized for more important finds. If that's the case I'm glad you're not in charge of how funds are used. 

Just to add:  The green sections are Mitochondrial Haplogroups while the blue are Y Chomosome Haplogroups.

cormac

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

12 minutes ago, lilthor said:

You seem to be hung up on the "human vs alien" thing.  That's unnecessary.

Someone of your background ought to be interested in what DNA analysis can tell us about the genetic heritage of all ancient humans.  Why not these?

Which takes us back to the "once you've analysed one South American skull..." comment you ridiculed. The assumption is they're purely human and from a previously studied bloodline, therefore there is no reason to study them on a DNA level. 

Now, if we take up the idea that they're ancient assanaut hybrids there should be other physical evidence to their bodies beyond odd shaped skulls.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

No, nearly all archaeological remains are not DNA tested. It's not nearly so cheap as someone has led you to believe. Nor is it at all easy to extract viable DNA from ancient human remains. If it survived in the first place. And overriding all is a compelling reason to do so, because almost invariably you will inflict damage on the remains, even if only a little. There has to be a compelling scientific reason to do so. Common skulls in a South American museum are not going to attract a lot of attention.

I would note that any competent physical anthropologist can examine these skulls and say without hesitation 'human', HSS.

If you'd like to know what archaeological testing of ancient human DNA costs here is a link: I suggest you ask them:

http://www.ancientdna.com/archaeological.html

The reason a Human DNA comparative study would be much more expensive - if you are trying to prove said subject is not HSS. You would have to look at the entire genome and compare it to the known information. This is substantially more difficult than looking at a few selected and well known 'sites', etc.

https://www.genome.gov/27565109/the-cost-of-sequencing-a-human-genome/

Based on the data collected from NHGRI-funded genome-sequencing groups, the cost to generate a high-quality 'draft' whole human genome sequence in mid-2015 was just above $4,000; by late in 2015, that figure had fallen below $1,500. The cost to generate a whole-exome sequence was generally below $1,000.

However I'm not sure if this number applies to doing so on an ancient DNA.

Now doing one skull would not be sufficient you would need to do a large number to ascertain if there was anything of interest to be seen - if you could get valid sample.

Perhaps Cormac our resident DNA expert could comment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Hanslune

[back to earth]

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's the problem, papa. Where have these "scientists" published their "findings"? Rather than just believe anything you read on the internet, dig deeper: what labs did the testing, who are the scientists, what are their credentials, and in what periodical or journal were their results published?

 

Awww  Man  ...... that's so heavy man !  

Cant I just YouTube that stuff ?

 

 

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

 

 

 

If all you can find is some text or a video on a web page, you should not trust them. That is not science.

I know it's your default to jump to anything smacking of the paranormal, but even paranormal investigators occasionally publish their findings. Nothing at all here, though. Just vacuous, empty claims.

 

Ohhh  man   !     Cant I  just       ...      ....     believe in stuff   ?    

[Harte]

6 hours ago, lilthor said:

That's a lot of conjecture with little to back it up.

These skulls absolutely scream for deeper analysis and the silence from orthodox archaeology is telling.

There's no money for satisfying the fringe, that's what it's "telling" us.

The skulls came with skeletons, identified as human (of course) long ago.

If you can't tell a human from an alien by looking at the skeleton, then you don't belong in the bidness.

Harte

[Hanslune]

Now they could (the Paracas people) be some local mutation, so all you need to do is obtain money from someone to do a study, but those legimate sources will know that competent people have said - HSS -, so why waste it? In general the orthodox and alternative forces do such testing and publish results, the fringe occasionally does so but if they get a result they don't like - they don't report it, and if they do get a result they like they splash it all over - often misinterpreting it. However, they have learned it is a lot cheaper to just pretend, you can see this a lot in big foot 'research', they do that instead of the studies and spending money.

The whole idea is to keep the possibility of them being 'aliens', alive, not to establish whether they are or not - no money or attention in that, given that the far greater chance is they are HSS and not alien.

I would also note that modern DNA results won't come up with 'ALIEN' it would show an error. Unless someone has written software that can ID non earthly DNA................lol

Edited September 26, 2017 by Hanslune

[cormac mac airt]

10 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I would note that any competent physical anthropologist can examine these skulls and say without hesitation 'human', HSS.

If you'd like to know what archaeological testing of ancient human DNA costs here is a link: I suggest you ask them:

http://www.ancientdna.com/archaeological.html

The reason a Human DNA comparative study would be much more expensive - if you are trying to prove said subject is not HSS. You would have to look at the entire genome and compare it to the known information. This is substantially more difficult than looking at a few selected and well known 'sites', etc.

https://www.genome.gov/27565109/the-cost-of-sequencing-a-human-genome/

Based on the data collected from NHGRI-funded genome-sequencing groups, the cost to generate a high-quality 'draft' whole human genome sequence in mid-2015 was just above $4,000; by late in 2015, that figure had fallen below $1,500. The cost to generate a whole-exome sequence was generally below $1,000.

However I'm not sure if this number applies to doing so on an ancient DNA.

Now doing one skull would not be sufficient you would need to do a large number to ascertain if there was anything of interest to be seen - if you could get valid sample.

Perhaps Cormac our resident DNA expert could comment.

While the cost just to generate a whole genome/exome sequence is indeed coming down that's just part of the problem. Before that can happen one has to find a sufficient quantity of viable DNA in which to test, while realizing that the older it is the less chance of acquiring sufficient samples. But even after the testing is done it must be compared against several thousand samples of already verified and catalogued mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome DNA haplogroups/haplotypes as well as Nuclear DNA. And that's just from other members of HSS. It also would be compared to samples of archaic human DNA such as from Neanderthals and Denisovans as well as our closest genetic cousins the chimpanzee and gorilla. Taking the Starchild skull as an example more than 90% of known human (HSS) haplogroups/haplotypes WERE PURPOSELY IGNORED in order to make the claim of ET origin. That's not only bad science that's gross incompetence. Outside of the fringe I know of no one who supports such incompetence. 

cormac

[stereologist]

In trying to find out if Melba "bigfoot's daddy is an opposum" Ketchum is the geneticist I found out that this is a story from 2014.

http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/

There was denial back then but look at this post from Project Avalon

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50559-Elongated-skulls-from-the-Paracus-culture-of-Peru&p=616731&viewfull=1#post616731

From the first link

Quote

“These results are not from Melba Ketchum; she has other samples.”

Bad archaeology also mentions that Foerster is saying that the geneticist is not Ketchum.

https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/tag/brien-foerster/

From Jason Covalito uses a phrase from Dave Barry when he wrote the following

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/creationist-bigfoot-veterinarian-wants-cash-to-sequence-nephilim-giant-dna

Quote

She believes that the Nephilim are closely related to—and I am not making this up—“cone heads of Peru, Sasquatch, and the red headed giants of North America that are famous in Native American legends.”

OK. Well that was a shocker of a search for me. Foerster can't figure out if it is safe to be seen with Ketchum. Ketchum is a creationist wacko seeing cone heads related to bigfoot.

[papageorge1]

17 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's the problem, papa. Where have these "scientists" published their "findings"? Rather than just believe anything you read on the internet, dig deeper: what labs did the testing, who are the scientists, what are their credentials, and in what periodical or journal were their results published? If all you can find is some text or a video on a web page, you should not trust them. That is not science.

I know it's your default to jump to anything smacking of the paranormal, but even paranormal investigators occasionally publish their findings. Nothing at all here, though. Just vacuous, empty claims.

Here was my initial post again
 

Quote

 

Atacama mummy, Nazca Mummy, Paracas skulls, all from the Peruvian region has me thinking the lid is coming off of the entrenched worldview. DNA in each case has been studied with claimed shocking results. 

I know the skeptic crowd here finds this all pathetic and worthless at this point but call me skeptical of the skeptics. I often seen ego and jealousy get in the way of open-minded interest.

 

Note that I was only giving my personal opinion above. Here is some of my reasoning:

1) After decades of studying paranormal/cryptid/alien/alternative subjects I have actually developed a low opinion of people I judge to be hard-core skeptics. So I consider the attacks on this stuff here but it doesn't carry the weight with me that it does with others.

2) I believe there are those with psychic abilities and they tell of a past much more interesting than mainstream anthropology and archeology is aware.

3) If many of these attacks are true it would require same wholesale fraud and lying to the point that it doesn't strike me as a terribly reasonable position. I combined Atacama/Nazca/Paracas in my initial comment. 

4) This appeal to some lack of 'official authorities' in the attacks has me suspecting that this might be akin to a medieval inquisition before a tribunal of bishops.

5) I have come to believe in alien involvement with humanity making for more possibilities with these Peruvian controversies.

 

So, that is some of my reasoning that formed my opinion. As they are my opinions, they ultimately only matter to me, but I enjoy sharing them and discussing them with others on forums unless the others become so enraged they become ugly.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

Quote

So, that is some of my reasoning that formed my opinion. As they are my opinions, they ultimately only matter to me, but I enjoy sharing them and discussing them with others on forums unless the others become so enraged they become ugly.

Once again your opinion is not based on the facts but your delusional thinking. Good going.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

3) If many of these attacks are true it would require same wholesale fraud and lying to the point that it doesn't strike me as a terribly reasonable position. I combined Atacama/Nazca/Paracas in my initial comment. 

Since when has fraud and lying needed to be a reasonable position? Never! All it has to accompllish is to stroke the ego of those too damned lazy to actually learn about and understand what the hell they're talking about as well as, in many cases, line their pockets with money acquired from the sale of BS to the gullible. That's not remotely too hard to understand, is it?

cormac

[stereologist]

Quote

4) This appeal to some lack of 'official authorities' in the attacks has me suspecting that this might be akin to a medieval inquisition before a tribunal of bishops.

This is the sort of thing that the fringies always claim. It is their excuse for failing to provide well written researcher reports that are peer reviewed. It is a sad excuse. It appeals to the extremely gullible.

Usually the fringie story has to start with a suggestion that almost all of science is wrong. Usually some false reason is given such as science once believed the Earth was flat. They go on to suggest that all of science is overturned time and time again. Now they have opened the door for their fringie idea but only in the eyes of the extremely gullible and foolish.

What these foolishly gullible do not understand is that science is a slow moving process in which ideas are proposed and tested and retested. Legitimate ideas within science are contested and given the third degree, the type of inspection and discussion that fringies fear. Real science is not afraid to make a proposal that is shot down. Fringies fear challenges. They know their ideas are bad and unable to withstand even the simplest of challenges, as we so commonly see.

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This is the sort of thing that the fringies always claim.

Back to my point 4)....fringies=witches

[stereologist]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Back to my point 4)....fringies=witches

Thanks for showing us your true colors by completely misrepresenting what I posted.

I posted that fringies are afraid of the facts and cannot stand to be challenged. When you post that fringies=witches maybe that is the way you see fringies. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that fringies cannot stand the fire that is given to real science proposals.

[jmccr8]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Back to my point 4)....fringies=witches

Thing is Papa that if these"researchers" were confident about what they propose then they should come forward with both their credentials and their theory so that it can be impartially reviewed by their peers. Churches are full of sinners and you don't see them stoning each other in the streets, they are given council to amend themselves. We don't see the scientific community doing things any different if the theory doesn't hold up then that individual has to refine their presentation by finding evidence that supports their claim.

jmccr8 

[papageorge1]

18 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Thing is Papa that if these"researchers" were confident about what they propose then they should come forward with both their credentials and their theory so that it can be impartially reviewed by their peers.  

I think they do those things far more than you claim. And often they have no final conclusion to present; often at this point it is just some findings that don't fit current academic thinking.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think they do those things far more than you claim. And often they have no final conclusion to present; often at this point it is just some findings that don't fit current academic thinking.

It seems that part of your confusion in this is that you have no idea how experiments are set up.

If there is no conclusion or as you call it a "final conclusion" then there is nothing to discuss. How can someone know that there are 'findings that don't fit current academic thinking" unless they demonstrate this to be the case.

There are plenty of real science papers on observations. One item was the potential for a pole shift event from the late Cretaceous. Other items are rapid magnetic pole wanderings captured in basalt flows. These are just geology, but findings such as this are reported in the literature for a wide range of subjects. The Pioneer anomaly garnered a number of papers all based on the same data. I believe there are papers on the possibility of supraluminal events.

Your suggestion is wrong. It is possible to publish on findings  that "don't fit current academic thinking".