It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA Tests Show Paracas Skulls Not Human

page: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
So, what have we decided up until now?

The guy who is doing the DNA testing is a crook? He hasn't released his tests?

These are normal skulls of human beings?

Or they don't want us to know the truth?

As always these sorts of thing are left to the reader's discretion, but I wouldn't trust science completely. There are a lot of mysteries out there and no one knows all the answers.




posted on May, 2 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: buddha
I wish the fool had done the DNA tests in secret.


He did, where is the report?



My point exactly. There's no information on exactly WHO did the alleged testing. Furthermore, there's no corroboration by other independent labs to show similar results. This guy has an agenda that goes something like this - $$$$$


Actually that wouldn't be his responsibility...and, even IF he did provide this additional data, it could not be considered valid simply because the original data provider provided it...I do hope you understand how that works.

My biggest issue is the total lack of any data whatsoever...


I understand the process better than most because I *DO* research... Or rather, I own companies who do research. If I or one of my scientists comes across something groundbreaking, it must be independently corroborated. There have been too many cases where research was not independently backed up and investors lost tons of money after it was discovered the 'research' was bogus.

Any scientist worth their salt would get REPEATABLE, independent verification of any finds worth scientific value.



Sorry...but IF you showed up in my office with a dataset, and said that this other dataset you have verifies the first one.

I would throw you and your two dataset out of my office.

You see, that second dataset...MUST be independent. IF you give it to me it is NOT independent.


edit on 2-5-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

An analogy: When a murdered body is discovered and the victim is known, is it necessary to conduct a DNA test to determine whether or not the deceased is human and therefore the perpetrator guilty of homocide?

Or can the medical profession identify a human by examination without the need for a DNA test?



Actually, the DNA test IS required to be absolutely certain. But, since there are no accepted non-terrestrial "Humans" the error persists. Course then, the probability of that error is currently rather small.

And there is another question; IF this skeleton/body/person is not terrestrial, yet seems indistinguishable from a terrestrial; IS it "Human?" Is "Human" a name reserved for natives of Earth?



Examination of a skeleton results in more than the conclusion "it's a humanoid."

Lastly, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude head binding as the cause of any elongated skull ever found. Claims of elongation beyond the capability of head binding that are made by Foerster (or Pye) can be (and have been - by me) shown to be utter nonsense.

Harte


NO, there simply isn't enough data contained in the "viewing" of a skeleton to determine it's species...DNA is required.

You last point however...IF these gentlemen wish us to believe these things they need to provide adequate, valid data. Otherwise, how are we to make an intelligent analysis?



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Where on God's earth do you ever get the idea that I said your description is the process? I have repeatedly said it was independent verification. Typically your theory, research, etc... is shared with a scientific network. It is peer-reviewed before ever being published in this kind of sensationalist manner. Independent peers do their own research to corroborate or disprove the others' hypothesis. Take the Higgs Boson, for example. The mathematical existence of the mechanism that allows the Higgs Boson to exist was theorized around 1964 by Yoichiro Nambu. That in itself was backed up by research from Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa. (All 3, incidentally, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2008.) This work was debated and reviewed many ways by many different scientists throughout the 1960's. But notice that the key to the acceptance of these theories is corroboration of the mathematical basis.... In the end, Peter Higgs was able to argue for his relativistic model...again, through published papers in peer-reviewed community. These models were ultimately successfully proven at CERN in 2012.

Now compare that process above to this and tell me which is more likely to be authentic:



First, consider the source: the preliminary results of genetic testing were announced by Brien Foerster, who is the assistant director of the Paracas History Museum.

That’s a pretty impressive title, and I’ll admit that it threw me. That title implies formal archaeological, curatorial, or history credentials, maybe a body of peer-reviewed research projects. That title implies that he has serious academic credibility, and that we should listen to his announcements about his areas of expertise.

None of this is true. Some pretty basic Google research turns up some facts about Foerster that cast his announcement in an entirely different light.

First, his academic credentials: by cobbling information together from the webpage of his company Hidden Inca Tours and his official Facebook page, it appears that he has a Bachelor of Science from the University of Victoria, in British Columbia, Canada. Foerster doesn’t offer any further information about his educational background, including his exact field of undergraduate study. I was unable to find any evidence of an advanced degree.

Foerster’s company, Hidden Inca Tours, is a travel agency that specializes in taking travelers on paranormal tours around the world, but focuses on Peru and the surrounding region. Foerster has also written a number of books on archaeology, including one called “The Enigma of Cranial Deformation: Elongated Skulls of the Ancients,” which he wrote with David Hatcher Childress. Vanderbilt University archaeologist Charles E. Orser once called Childress “one of the most flagrant violators of basic archaeological reasoning.”


www.peruthisweek.com...

Nothing about the way these alleged DNA tests were done is Standard Scientific Method. Nor was it peer reviewed and independently corroborated.
edit on 2-5-2015 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
First of all, it's Brian Forester.

He would never reveal the name of the person he claimed he was doing the testing. then when he does reveal the name, that person says he's lying. then, he changes his story again and says he is working with that person, they're just not working on this particular project, which is what he has been claiming all along. He and other hoaxers like Pye have been pulling this for years to rake in money and sell books.


Forester is one of them LOL, who the hell is April Holloway? Are any of these people even real or is it a Sorcha Faal type hoax? It almost seems like one of those porn page circle jerks, except in this case all the hoaxters are using all the other hoaxters for reference.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It is all on the other thread of practically the exact same title and content. Link already provided.

The tester was Melba (peer review it yourself) Ketchum, of bigfoot blunder hoax fiasco's aplenty, Ketchum: ''it's a yeti'' , DNA test: ''it's a possum/ horse /bear'' and her supposed cohort.

The skulls are consistently comparative to deliberate elongation as per various tribes /early cultures of the era and area.
edit on 2-5-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
Nothing about the way these alleged DNA tests were done is Standard Scientific Method. Nor was it peer reviewed and independently corroborated.


You will have to excuse me, I'm not a large fan of the "peer review", especially where anything extraterrestrial is concerned. too many scientist types seem afraid to take on that subject...

See my comments and those of others:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The biggest problem with the peer review is that too much "stock" is placed in it. And the lack of it is used as an excuse to dismiss valid datasets.


edit on 2-5-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418



You will have to excuse me, I'm not a large fan of the "peer review", especially where anything extraterrestrial is concerned.

Fair enough. Peer review does not necessarily validate anything but it should, at least, confirm that valid experimental protocols are observed.

What's your alternative? Other than just accepting any old claim at face value, that is.
edit on 5/2/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte




Lastly, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude head binding as the cause of any elongated skull ever found. Claims of elongation beyond the capability of head binding that are made by Foerster (or Pye) can be (and have been - by me) shown to be utter nonsense.


#### Forester!
I can't believe you're serious. This amounts to an ancient
fad, that caught on globally, as you explain it. No telephones
no teenagers and no fashion designers in Paris. And you don't
even identify a source because according to you they are all copies
And there are some implications to be made even if that turns out
to be truth.
But you haven't even spoken to the lack of sutures that are
missing in these otherwise perfect examples of human skulls.

I also don't understand what you've seen that convinces you
that I haven't? What is that? Please I want to be as convinced
as you are either way? So convince me.
edit on Rpm50215v25201500000057 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418



You will have to excuse me, I'm not a large fan of the "peer review", especially where anything extraterrestrial is concerned.

Fair enough. Peer review does not necessarily validate anything but it should, at least, confirm that valid experimental protocols are observed.

What's your alternative? Other than just accepting any old claim at face value, that is.




Spot. On.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418



You will have to excuse me, I'm not a large fan of the "peer review", especially where anything extraterrestrial is concerned.

Fair enough. Peer review does not necessarily validate anything but it should, at least, confirm that valid experimental protocols are observed.

What's your alternative? Other than just accepting any old claim at face value, that is.


Oh I don't know Phage, how about evaluating the protocols and procedures used by who ever to determine IF they were indeed proper and acceptable. If that check out, perhaps going on to see if the results are what they are claimed Perhaps find your own scientist to help out.

Or, arrange for the peer review.

You need to understand that the peer review isn't typically used in the segment of science and technology that I "grew-up" in. We rely more on the "White Paper", which when used properly is kind of "self validating". By that I mean that much of the content is validated by the implementation of that content.

While the academic community may think they have time to wait for what is by no means inevitable, the Technology sector moves forward. We use the knowledge of our peers kind of with out that "review"...we have few issues this way. And, you have technology you take for granted; done without "peer review".

Also, as I have said a couple of times; the lack of a "peer review" is too frequently used as an excuse to reject potentially valid datasets.

kind of like; I wish to use Radial Velocity at my observatory for exoplanet detection. Do I really need to buy an expensive spectrometer? Or is it possible to turn my telescope into a spectrometer?

The answer: firstly, there are no "peer reviewed" papers on this. There are however a couple of White papers describing some software and hardware arrangements that are supposedly capable of doing this> Should I reject those white papers because they have not been peer reviewed? Or is it possible for me to construct the very basics, as sort of an experiment, just to see IF it might work? Perhaps, depending on circumstance, I may not to do any construction at all...maybe discrete components of this question can be demonstrated individually, thus giving me the necessary data to go forward.

So...while the peer review should give me all the "proof" needed, I don't really need that peer review to determine the truth and reality...



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
Oh I don't know Phage, how about evaluating the protocols and procedures used by who ever to determine IF they were indeed proper and acceptable.


Please list the "protocols and procedures they used.


perhaps going on to see if the results are what they are claimed


Please show us the results....



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

So...while the peer review should give me all the "proof" needed, I don't really need that peer review to determine the truth and reality...

So...
No alternative to peer review.
You'll just accept any old claim, just because. That's nice.

edit on 5/3/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418

So...while the peer review should give me all the "proof" needed, I don't really need that peer review to determine the truth and reality...

So...
No alternative.
You just accept any old claim, just because. That's nice.



Phage, IF that is how you wish to misinterpret what I said, then so be it...However, I think you do know that I did not say anything even remotely like that.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
I asked for an alternative to peer review. You offered none.
So do you just reject any old claims, just because?



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
Oh I don't know Phage, how about evaluating the protocols and procedures used by who ever to determine IF they were indeed proper and acceptable.


Please list the "protocols and procedures they used.


perhaps going on to see if the results are what they are claimed


Please show us the results....


Please...try to understand...perhaps if you read slower...
And, I think you already know that none of us has access to those datasets.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418
I asked for an alternative to peer review. You offered none.
So do you just reject any old claims, just because?


Yes, and I related to you a process that is currently being used with great success that doesn't depend on "peer review" and has provided all of the science, and technology you use in your everyday life, and in fact take for granted.

The ascent of the box you are using did not involve "peer review" for the most part. Yet, it does seem to work just fine. The methods used by the scientists and engineers that developed that technology will work anywhere else, even in your overly rigid scientific world, and demonstrates that the rigidity shown here on ATS in regard to "peer review" is more a foolish demand used almost solely to avoid accepting potentially valid data.

The insistence on "peer review" is in reality a fool's errand since it relies solely on another scientist verifying the content of a report. IF that report is complete, as it should be, then we do not need a scientist to verify IF proper protocols and procedures have been followed. With some due diligence we can even begin to understand the data. Tell me; what do you do IF no scientist wishes to do your "peer review"? Do you forget that un-reviewed body of work? I think that would be foolish, illogical, and unscientific.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Yes, and I related to you a process that is currently being used with great success that doesn't depend on "peer review" and has provided all of the science, and technology you use in your everyday life, and in fact take for granted.
Sorry, I seem to have missed that. You did speak of "knowledge of our peers" but that did not seem to have much to do with the dissemination of information, more of a building on prior work. That's good. That's fine. But it doesn't really help with separating wheat from chaff when it comes to claims.

You talked about using information for your own use. The example you used was using a telescope for spectroscopy. You complained that there are no peer reviewed papers saying that it can be done. Guess what? There are a few hundred years of peer review that say it can be done. Spectroscopy is not new. Astronomical spectroscopy is not new. Just as that science I use in every day life has been well and truly peer reviewed. Both on paper and in practical usage.

Or maybe you think that peer review begins and ends with publication of a specific paper. It doesn't. Publication is only a beginning. Peer review is an ongoing process. Just like science is. Duplication of results is part of the process. There have been many, many peer reviewed publications which have turned out to be utterly wrong. There are also non reviewed claims that have turned out to be accurate. But guess what happens more often.

Peer review does not validate the claims of an article. I said that initially, but it helps separate the wheat from the chaff. Yes, some wheat is probably lost in the process, as well as some chaff leaking through.

What happens when information that is presented that is outside of your area(s) of expertise? Do you ignore what the actual peers have to say?

I'll ask again because you have not provided one, what is your alternative? Just accept any old claim, or just reject any old claim?


edit on 5/3/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
One of my favorite subjects...

Made miserable, with people's inability to suspend disbelief for just one thread, and talk about the impossibilities/possibilities/probabilities.

Screw it. I'm out.

S&F for you MRuss. The Paracas Skulls are one of my fascinations. I'm not surprised we are finding more and more new humanoid species, the deeper archaeologists dig.

CdT


Sorry CdT but the motto of this site is DENY IGNORANCE


It is? Says who? Says where?
I thought they discontinued that... a long time ago... after it's many logical fallacies and or inconsistencies were pointed out by myself and other members over the years. Sure it sounded cool, and superior, and elitist, but then we matured and ditched it... I thought.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
And, I think you already know that none of us has access to those datasets.


How do you even know that they exist then?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join