The Starchild Skull is Human

a reply to: zatara

Of course he did. He was pushing non human/hybrid even after 2 labs concluded it was human.

a reply to: micpsi
Two replies, wow, sorry to set you off so bad.
Unlike you I know "contamination" does not work like that. Not bias against alien evidence, science.

Let's try this theory. What if "aliens" from other planets are actually humans and we are their cousins - the star seed theory. Just like very tall or very short people are still human, they might be our cousins with a few adjustments in their physical appearance.

a reply to: niv

Holy crap we now have a definitive answer. Never thought I would see the day. Kind of a bummer, but at least now I can focus my very limited attention span on other things in the field like Muddy Rivers or Aurora.

a reply to: niv

I'd like to have the test confirmed. There is no such thing in science as 100% proof positive, only compelling evidence.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: niv

I'd like to have the test confirmed. There is no such thing in science as 100% proof positive, only compelling evidence.

This is the 3rd such test that has come to this conclusion. So how many times do you need it confirmed?

originally posted by: Daughter2
Let's try this theory. What if "aliens" from other planets are actually humans and we are their cousins - the star seed theory. Just like very tall or very short people are still human, they might be our cousins with a few adjustments in their physical appearance.

Then they would have different DNA and would not have the DNA markers of Haplogroup C.

a reply to: dreamingawake

He stopped replying because he was shown the truth about how silly his argument was.

His argument boiled down to "If even 1 person ever touched this skull then the results can be wrong (covers ears)".

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: niv

I'd like to have the test confirmed. There is no such thing in science as 100% proof positive, only compelling evidence.

This is the 3rd such test that has come to this conclusion. So how many times do you need it confirmed?

I respectfully disagree. Determining that one of a person's parents is human does not prove that a person is human. This is the most that can be said of the prior test. There were enough uncertainties that until this recent test, there was no determinate conclusion and I was willing to put off my conclusion until science tells me something definitive (to the extent science can be definitive).

a reply to: niv
The first test determined the male parent was human.
The second test determined the female parent was human.
The third test verified both findings and concluded both parents were human.

How many more times do they need to verify the findings?

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: micpsi
Two replies, wow, sorry to set you off so bad.
Unlike you I know "contamination" does not work like that. Not bias against alien evidence, science.

Perhaps if you are so knowledgeable, you should notify the lab that carried out the DNA tests that they were wrong in admitting that contamination could invalidate their conclusions! Not science but a knee-jerk reaction, motivated by bias, made you think that science had confirmed your belief whereas the test proved nothing conclusive at all. True science considers ALL possibilities, not just the ones you want to consider.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: niv
The first test determined the male parent was human.
The second test determined the female parent was human.
The third test verified both findings and concluded both parents were human.

How many more times do they need to verify the findings?

The number of times is irrelevant as long as none of these tests could eliminate the possibility that prior contamination of the samples could have invalidated any conclusion. At least the lab admitted it. You and others here need to learn scientific methodology before making your usual knee-jerk reactions towards anything that appears to confirm your ideological bias towards claims of the paranormal.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: niv
The first test determined the male parent was human.
The second test determined the female parent was human.
The third test verified both findings and concluded both parents were human.

How many more times do they need to verify the findings?

The number of times is irrelevant as long as none of these tests could eliminate the possibility that prior contamination of the samples could have invalidated any conclusion. At least the lab admitted it. You and others here need to learn scientific methodology before making your usual knee-jerk reactions towards anything that appears to confirm your ideological bias towards claims of the paranormal.

It can't be eliminated. It can only be minimized. 1 in a billion chance is still a chance. Between the two of us only one of us doesn't understand scientific methodology, and it's not me.

The only way to eliminate it is to have every single person who ever touched it tested. Pye made that impossible. The hilarious thing is your argument means if the test came back alien you claim it can't be relied upon. It could be contamination from an alien that touched it.

Actual science has ways of dealing with these unknowns. They did it, they concluded the results are not from contamination.

No i dont accept it. Aliens look like deformed human children and drive triangle shaped sky tractors with headlights and road flares. End of story.

a reply to: BigBangWasAnEcho

Sorry real aliens have BLINKING headlights.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: niv
The first test determined the male parent was human.
The second test determined the female parent was human.
The third test verified both findings and concluded both parents were human.

How many more times do they need to verify the findings?

The number of times is irrelevant as long as none of these tests could eliminate the possibility that prior contamination of the samples could have invalidated any conclusion. At least the lab admitted it. You and others here need to learn scientific methodology before making your usual knee-jerk reactions towards anything that appears to confirm your ideological bias towards claims of the paranormal.

If your DNA was to be tested to determine if YOU are human, any lab would admit that there would be no way of being 100% sure that there was no other human contamination (because nothing is "100%" in science)...but that does not mean that you are not human.

As 'OccamsRazor' mentioned above, there are no ways to absolutely eliminate the possibility of contamination, but there are ways to test it in order to make if highly likely that the contamination is not an issue, and that is reported what the testing lab did through their testing methodology.

Might it be alien? Sure, I suppose it falls "within the realm of possibility". However, there is no evidence (beyond "Oh...But it looks so weird!!") that supports the alien claim as anything more than "within the realm of possibility".

a reply to: Box of Rain

They did the test several times as well, every time with the same result. The lab in 2003 got the same results. Two labs, going great lengths to make contamination an almost impossible factor, getting the same result over and over and over ... but that apparently doesn't matter to believers.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: micpsi
Two replies, wow, sorry to set you off so bad.
Unlike you I know "contamination" does not work like that. Not bias against alien evidence, science.

Perhaps if you are so knowledgeable, you should notify the lab that carried out the DNA tests that they were wrong in admitting that contamination could invalidate their conclusions! Not science but a knee-jerk reaction, motivated by bias, made you think that science had confirmed your belief whereas the test proved nothing conclusive at all. True science considers ALL possibilities, not just the ones you want to consider.

Speak about knee jerk and bias you nicely keep ad hom accusing me of, look in the mirror. 2004 join date perhaps you need to participate more/brush up on the t&c?

This current study that determined the skull is human does not talk about that. You are bringing up older studies correct? If not share where this study, in the OP, says such a thing. The old studies are not relevant to this study at hand besides dismissing the prior claims that were incorrect. I don't see your circular argument point here.

a reply to: dreamingawake

He is actually technically correct. Except he is twisting what they said.

They said it is impossible to test everyone who has touched the skull to verify their DNA, so contamination is possible (1 in a trillion is possible). They took steps to minimize any risk from contamination though and are confident their results are not from contamination.

Add to that these results mirror the 2003 results, which also went to great length to minimize contamination and Pye himself said he thought the results were real, and this is a closed case.

Basically what this lab is saying is that if even 1 person ever touched the skull and they do not have that person's DNA on file it is POSSIBLE that they are reading that person's DNA. Possible .. yes .. statistically significant chance, no.