The Starchild Skull

What is unusual, and shockingly so, is that there are segments of many other fragments of the Starchild's nuDNA for which no close matches could be found in the NIH database!

This is not unheard of, nor impossible, but it is a significant indicator that something about the Starchild is not entirely human. It strongly suggests that some aspects of the Starchild's DNA might not be found on Earth at all! Again, this is not absolute proof. We need many additional readings through modern sequencing machines to confirm it.

^^Evidence of Lloyd Pye's prejudice of this skull being an "alien hybrid." He does this little game throughout his website. *It could be human but then again it could be alien too... just hold on for more tests!* This has been going on for how long now... 16 years? It does keep the believers hanging on.

This all began when Pye was given this skull and on based on past evidence of his biased belief in alien beings, that's the path he chose. It looked like the stereotypical alien, I guess it could be, right? Instead of starting from the default, which is the skull being human, and working your way out to show it isn't, Pye gave it an equal chance of being alien. That's evident by the "debunking" on his website of every single point contrary to his own belief. The site is heavily biased and he makes the clear choice to believe this is alien, while appearing objective.

He was attempting to show through actual scientific methods that this skull was in the least partially alien, when there has been zero equal scientific evidence to show alien beings exist to begin with. There's no scientific foundation to even base his own belief and equal assumptions that this could be alien compared to human. It was being approached as if it has been already established that extraterrestrials exist on Earth.

As far as interpreting the "data" on his website, that should be left to actual experts that have worked with the skull. Not to a self-proclaimed armchair "expert" on a message board. Dr. Garry Nolan, who is a geneticist at Stanford University and studied the skull, said it best in reference to the study:

As to the general application of how to use DNA forensic evidence for exploration of claimed sightings, skeletons, or interactions – buyer beware. It is so easy to be tricked by DNA analysis that it does need the hands of people with the right experience to get it technically correct. And the computation required is not "desktop" — you have to be able to access databases of human allelic variants, ethnic variation in DNA, etc. to be able to put results in context.

Nolans further comments on the skull:

the Starchild Project is ignoring science when it states that it still believes in the results of the FOXP2 analysis. They can't call themselves scientifically based and ignore simple facts.

Having now been asked several times about my commentary in emails from bloggers, I will go further. I am supportive of the goals of the project, but I can categorically state that the FoxP2 sequence analysis above is amateur... and wrong. I am more than willing to have an open debate with the geneticist who makes the claims herein. Is he willing to step forward and openly reveal himself and have this debate?

Anyone with knowledge of evolutionary genetics would not make this mistake. It calls into question the judgment of the team, and makes it look (to me) like the team is using this simply to raise money from those who don't know the difference between opinion and fact.

He told Lloyd Pye before his death in 2013, that extracting protein from the skull, which he said there was "a lot", would be a better way to determine information rather than the previous method which could be contaminated. They have yet to publish anything on that suggestion because of course, they need more money.

Anyone being truly objective needs to read Dr. Garry Nolan's responses HERE (scroll to the comments section at the bottom to the 12th comment) Or read his comments to an email on a blog HERE where he comments about the Starchild skull below those of the Ata "alien."

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The geneticist is Ketchum, who claimed to have Bigfoot DNA, and when an expert examined the DNA it was actually an opossum.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The geneticist is Ketchum, who claimed to have Bigfoot DNA, and when an expert examined the DNA it was actually an opossum.

From the famed genetics team of Dewey, Ketchum and Howe?

a reply to: Telepathy3

...but can also cause exopthalmos, or shallow eye sockets...

Exopthalmos is 'bulging' of the eyes, typically seen in Grave's Disease. It is not shallow eye sockets. The syntax in which exopthalmos is defined suggests it is shallow eye sockets. This would be incorrect. Abnormal connective tissue deposition gives the appearance of bulging eyes, which I suppose could manifest as shallow eye sockets, however, exopthalmos is much more complicated than that.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The geneticist is Ketchum, who claimed to have Bigfoot DNA, and when an expert examined the DNA it was actually an opossum.

From the famed genetics team of Dewey, Ketchum and Howe?

There is a restaurant in Spokane, Wa by that name...or was 15 years ago...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The geneticist is Ketchum, who claimed to have Bigfoot DNA, and when an expert examined the DNA it was actually an opossum.

Do you mean this Dr. Ketchum?

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum moved to a small rural town in a forested area of Texas after graduating from Texas A&M University with a doctorate in veterinary medicine. She practiced as a veterinarian for several years before entering the field of genetics and becoming the director of DNA Diagnostics.

And just who was the expert that found that her bigfoot DNA was opossum?

a reply to: tanka418

www.huffingtonpost.com...
doubtfulnews.com...

Ketchum bought a journal to publish her study in the journal. It's complete crap. All Ketchum has to do is hire an actual respected expert and let him/her be lead and co-author the paper. Ketchum chose the shady route.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

www.huffingtonpost.com...
doubtfulnews.com...

Ketchum bought a journal to publish her study in the journal. It's complete crap. All Ketchum has to do is hire an actual respected expert and let him/her be lead and co-author the paper. Ketchum chose the shady route.

So a PhD from Texas A&M isn't an expert?...Perhaps the school isn't up to "snuff"?

You haven't answered my questions, only helped to spread "trash". So, how about you dig up the real answer, or is it that what she says disagrees with your uninformed opinion?

It would appear that you too are hung up and far too dependent on the modern media fantasy that only a peer reviewed paper has any validity...you do understand that the "Peer reviewed" paper is likely destroying science. The requirements to publish place too great a stress on science and forces the application of "shoddy" science...as long as it receives a good review is all that counts.

You can see a rather visible instance of this with the controversy over climate change. The whole mess is turning into rather bad science, and as a result the real issues won't be addressed.

When we return to real science; you know...using and trusting our own intelligence and empirical observation perhaps we can once again start to make some real progress.

As for the "peer review"...if you are not capable of reading the scientists paper and determining whether his procedure, and assumptions are correct, then perhaps you should simply remain ignorant. On the other hand, you might educate yourself a little and learn what the scientist is talking about. That's what I do...

In any case man; that is the weakest damn excuse I've ever heard!

originally posted by: tanka418
So a PhD from Texas A&M isn't an expert?...Perhaps the school isn't up to "snuff"?

Not a PHD. Ketchum never got a PhD. Ketchum has a 6 year degree, which is currently a Masters, because Vets do not work on people back then the requirements were much more lax. Ketchum I believe is a DMV, regardless not a PhD.

Can you list the degree or qualification Ketchum received that qualifies her for doing this work?

originally posted by: tanka418
When we return to real science;

Real science like

Oh...no geneticist, no lab

You just making crap up!

and it shows you haven't paid the correct amount of attention. www.starchildproject.com...



a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
and it shows you haven't paid the correct amount of attention. www.starchildproject.com...



a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Have you checked out www.thestarchildskullisaliennomatterwhatanyonesays.com?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
So a PhD from Texas A&M isn't an expert?...Perhaps the school isn't up to "snuff"?

Not a PHD. Ketchum never got a PhD. Ketchum has a 6 year degree, which is currently a Masters, because Vets do not work on people back then the requirements were much more lax. Ketchum I believe is a DMV, regardless not a PhD.

Can you list the degree or qualification Ketchum received that qualifies her for doing this work?

Wow...just WOW!!!

You in a single post, completely destroyed your credibility...

Firstly, where is your data that she only has a Masters?

Second: and truly the worse...

DMV stands for Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Which she isn't...

She is a D V M: a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.

And, I do believe that would be sufficient qualification for the job of geneticist, depending of course on any extra course work she may have done.

You need to get a few Ducks!

a reply to: tanka418


Melba Ketchum wants $9000


I'll look into it for half that. :-)

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
When we return to real science;

Real science like

Oh...no geneticist, no lab

You just making crap up!

Ya know...I could start with discussing "Self validating data", but, I fear that is way beyond your abilities to comprehend.

And, I could talk about how the robots work, but, I'm very sure you couldn't understand that either.

But, actually neither of those would be necessary...

You see, I didn't need a geneticist for that because someone else's geneticist provided the data, I'm only using existing data ... so...no geneticist required on my part.

I also didn't need a "lab", since this was an exercise in mathematics...you see; I was calculating the probable number of differences that would occur over the full 16,500 or so nucleotides that compose that stable segment of mtDNA.

Perhaps you could "come up to speed?"

Oh...and, nothing has been made up...

Maybe she should try the Journal of Cosmology. They'll publish anything.

Bigfoot DNA is Bunk

Did you mean this?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte

Fixed the link.

Yeah, that's her too, but my article had to do with the bogus "peer review".

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte

Fixed the link.

Yeah, that's her too, but my article had to do with the bogus "peer review".

LOL!!!

Drac...that wasn't a "bogus peer review". It was simply the paper being published...
You really need to learn how to separate your fantasies from reality.

its also irrelevant

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte

And this is as sloppy a debunk as y'all are claiming Ketchum is...its BS!