Aliens HAVE visited earth - Finally... tangible evidence

Originally posted by Aeons
So again - please post your Y-DNA and your mtDNA. How deep was your testing? HVR1? HVR2? Have you done further typing on your Y to find a specific clad? Did you submit to the geneBank? I am sure that they would appreciate a unique sample.

The info is posted on my website, you are free to look at it any time you like.

Further testing has yielded no additional data. Though, I am currently looking into using the databased DNA information to attempt a prediction for both my haplogroups and phenotype. This doesn't look too good presently as there is little data available (only a few thousand records), but I may try anyway ...

Available data for autosomal DNA is on the order of 3000 - 5000 records,Y-Chromosome is better at some 90k records. The issues are building proper databases with these records so that the "mining" process can begin.

No the genebank didn't get a sample and isn't likely to.

Etharzi od Oma

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Human evolution is quite clear and obvious from rats in the trees to walking upright man. There is no missing link. The only thing cool is the fact that about 50,000 years ago we did not change at all outside, but inside. Because 200,000 years ago our form evolved, but 50,000 years ago our abilities evolved. If we were planted here by aliens, why would they planet us 200,000 years ago, and then wait another 150,000 to give us the ability to innovate and advance? Seems kind of dumb to me. "Yo lets create these sentient beings on this planet" "Ok"... 150,000 years later: "you remember those sentient beings we dropped off?" "yea?" "lets give them civilization and invention" "k bro".

Seems utterly pointless.

And yes, it is pretty astronomical. Because even if there was that one other humanoid species out there that was space worthy, the chances of them stumbling upon our poor pathetic sphere are so out the window that by the time they find us, we would already have gone the way of moving onto a new plane of existence.

A calulation i can give you a ways back I did with some friends estimated around only 75,000 planets out there with the possibility of humanoid life. Add to the chances of not blowing themselves up, dieing from a plague, not advancing far enough, or simply not exterminating themselves by space or there own means, and the chances are pretty low you'll ever see another humanoid.


75 000 / (1.59486 × (10^55)) = 4.70260713 × 10^-51

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Space travel requires time travel. Weather you use wormholes, warp drive, quantum tunneling, etc etc, you will be affecting space, and therefore time. It is more likely for mankind to invent a time machine then it is for us to build a starship. The truth is our first time machine will be using the same technology we eventually use to travel through the stars. The big fat contradiction to that of course is why would you want to travel to the stars when you could just go back in time, end all the wars, and give ourselves all our technology 50,000 years ago. In fact, maybe that's what Atlantis is. Maybe we are all the product of our own failed time travel, and are doomed to repeat ourselves.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Gorman91]

AnthraAndromda - wasted my time looking at your DNA on your website.

You are CLEARLY manipulating your information on this.

You're of viking descendent likely. That would make you Nordic alright. EARTH Nordic.

Of which there are about a couple of other million. R1b is NOT in anyway odd.

Mutations in Y-DNA happen much quicker than in mtDNA. You're assigned number of years for mutations is highly exagerated.

Originally posted by Aeons
AnthraAndromda - wasted my time looking at your DNA on your website.

You are CLEARLY manipulating your information on this.

You're of viking descendent likely. That would make you Nordic alright. EARTH Nordic.

Of which there are about a couple of other million. R1b is NOT in anyway odd.

Mutations in Y-DNA happen much quicker than in mtDNA. You're assigned number of years for mutations is highly exagerated.

Sorry, I've not manipulated the data in any way, what you see is what I got from the lab.

If you had done your "homework" you would have seen that the haplogroup isn't R1b, and the closest neighbor is "A". This should place me a long way from the nordic regions.

By the way, the Y-Chromosome mutates about every 500 generations. Again, do some research, learn something new.

The bottom line is, neither my father nor my mother have a haplogroup / haplotype that originates on this rock of yours.

Etharzi od Oma

Please let me do a Chandler Bing here.

You are not right. You are SOOOOO not right. You could try to be more wrong, but you would fail.

You are manipulating the PRESENTATION of your information. Shameless.

Mutations in the Y-DNA happen often. Even in a couple of generations.

That's why it has so many damn clads. Because it changes constantly. You don't NEED Y-DNA to have a completely functional body, which is Y-DNA IS Y-DNA. It has been mutating enough that it has deleted entire "leg."

[edit on 2010/4/29 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Aeons
You are manipulating the PRESENTATION of your information. Shameless.

Just how am I manipulating the presentation of the data?

Mutations in the Y-DNA happen often. Even in a couple of generations.

You really should research this. Here is a link An Overview and Discussion of Various DNA Mutation Rates ...

In this paper you will see that the Y-chromosome mutation rate was set at 500 generations in 2001/2002, and the current working rate (by some geneology houses) is at 375 generations.

I checked my Y-Chromosome markers against one of the largest databases available. There was no group match, only a close neighbor (their term) which doesn't match my phenotype.

However, if I am wrong, show us.

By the way, you are free to validate my results any time you like, on your nickle.

Etharzi od Oma.

reply to post by Gorman91

A calulation i can give you a ways back I did with some friends estimated around only 75,000 planets out there with the possibility of humanoid life. Add to the chances of not blowing themselves up, dieing from a plague, not advancing far enough, or simply not exterminating themselves by space or there own means, and the chances are pretty low you'll ever see another humanoid.

Please, by all means, provide this calculation - I haven't had a good laugh today.

And yes, it is pretty astronomical. Because even if there was that one other humanoid species out there that was space worthy, the chances of them stumbling upon our poor pathetic sphere are so out the window that by the time they find us, we would already have gone the way of moving onto a new plane of existence.

Dude, you just aren't getting it, are you?

The 'other' humanoid species would #1) look similar to, if not exactly like, us -and- #2) would know precisely where to find us, because [drumroll].... THEY are the ones that placed us here, eons ago. [crimany]





[edit on 4/30/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

[impatiently taps foot, waiting for Gorman91's 'calculation']

Originally posted by Reign02
the "starchild" was of native american decent and had a deformed head caused by a birth defect as I stated above. This has been proved, look it up. If it was some kind of unknown or alien don't you think there would be a lot more coverage on it? But since they figured out it wasn't special that is why media coverage has dropped

You forget one thing. The composition and hardness of the starchild skull which has been demonstrated by simple tests are very different from a normal human skull. A simple deformity is one thing, a huge difference in microscopic bone structure is another.

Originally posted by Reign02
the "starchild" was of native american decent and had a deformed head caused by a birth defect as I stated above. This has been proved, look it up. If it was some kind of unknown or alien don't you think there would be a lot more coverage on it? But since they figured out it wasn't special that is why media coverage has dropped

Actually, it hasn't been proven, I suggest you actually read the article when you look it up again. In the wikipedia article it says

Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.

This would seem to indicate that the father was / is unknown at this time. I would also like to point out that even if the DNA indicated "human" it could still be ET in nature. Like in a case where the haplogroup is inappropriate for the geographical area at the time (i.e. Mexico 900 years ago). If "father's" Y-chromosome was "Russian", or "German", then it is unlikely that "father" was human. The same would be true for "mother" if she had not come back as native american.

Etharzi od Oma