Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Alien Star child skull latest info?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't believe the skull was that of an alien being. It was likely that of a human being with physical deformations.


Tests conducted utilizing mtDNA recovered from the skull have established it as human.[1][2] Experts believe it to be the skull of a child who died as a result of known genetic or congenital abnormalities, such as congenital hydrocephalus.

en.wikipedia.org...

The term Star Child does not originate from the finding such skulls, but rather folklore that has been passed down through generations of native tribes. The discovery of deformed human cranial remains coined as "Star Child" was the latter result of the terms usage.
edit on 3/7/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Yea, there are experiments...That require a Visa.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This is the issue I have with this whole episode. How would we ever be able to say it is anything other than human or another species found here on earth. No one can say it is of an extraterrestrial nature as we have no DNA from an ET to compare it too. I too have heard that it was announced to be human and that because of deterioration most of the DNA could not be tested accurately. There are many with the agenda of only finding it to be of an ET nature and any findings will always be presented in that manner. There is a reason we have not heard anymore about it because they are waiting for the last round of results to be forgotten before they again attempt to sell the idea it is something it is not.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Modern DNA analysis uses a "primer" to determine the allele count for a specific chromosome markers. If we wee to test something as close to Humans as a Chimp. It is highly probable that it will appear to be Human, but, with unusual allele #s at some markers.

It shouldn't be so important to differentiate this skull as either Human or alien. The focus might be better applied as to whether or not it is Terrestrial...




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   

tanka418
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Modern DNA analysis uses a "primer" to determine the allele count for a specific chromosome markers. If we wee to test something as close to Humans as a Chimp. It is highly probable that it will appear to be Human, but, with unusual allele #s at some markers.

It shouldn't be so important to differentiate this skull as either Human or alien. The focus might be better applied as to whether or not it is Terrestrial...




I agree, if the focus were shifted away from the Human/Alien hypothesis a lot of the pseudo scientific aspects would be diminished or at least their "importance" would be greatly diminished. As for the testing and comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee genomes, I don't disagree with what your saying but it's still somewhat generalized and there are going to be differences in what you find depending on whether you are testing mtDNA or nDNA. Most labs are going to go for the mtDNA as a first option because the nuclear has a nasty habit of decomposing quicker and seems to be subject to contamination far easier than mtDNA. If you're testing to determine the origin of a skull you're probably better off going with the mitochondrial test. But honestly, if you've got even just a skull cap and you need to do sequencing to determine whether its human or not then you've got some serious problems and should think about going back to school. and by "you" I don't mean you, it was just a general descriptor for anyone who can't differentiate the morphologies.

Going back to the DNA, the average sequence difference is low (1.24%), the extent of changes is markedly different among sites and types of substitutions. Whereas 15% of all CpG sites have experienced changes between humans and chimpanzees, owing to a 23-fold excess of transitions and a 7-fold excess of transversions, substitutions at other sites vary in frequency, between 0.1% and 0.5%. If the nucleotide diversity in the common ancestral species of humans and chimpanzees is assumed to have been about fourfold higher than in contemporary humans, all possible comparisons between autosomes and X and Y chromosomes result in estimates of the ratio between male and female mutation rates of ~3. Now this is really only applicable to the example of determining the difference between humans and chimpanzees and isn't really germane when testing the starchild skull even if by some mad stroke of luck it turned out to be a human/? hybrid because we should expect to see, well, something unexpected in the results, something non-terrestrial. If the skull were a great deal older I might be inclined to think it was the product of hybridization between an AMH and H. Erectus but the skull isn't over 100,000 years old so I have to drop that fantasy especially because it's from the western hemisphere. I could get into how it would be hypothetically possible but I don't want to derail the thread anymore than I already have.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

DJMSN
This is the issue I have with this whole episode. How would we ever be able to say it is anything other than human or another species found here on earth. No one can say it is of an extraterrestrial nature as we have no DNA from an ET to compare it too. I too have heard that it was announced to be human and that because of deterioration most of the DNA could not be tested accurately.


Only the nuclear DNA had deteriorated and then when the nDNA was tested Pye proclaimed that it was also contaminated because the results weren't what he wanted. the mtDNA, from what I know, was just fine and has also been tested a few times as I believe there have been about a half dozen separate DNA tests done since 1999 and none of the point to an off world origin.


There are many with the agenda of only finding it to be of an ET nature and any findings will always be presented in that manner. There is a reason we have not heard anymore about it because they are waiting for the last round of results to be forgotten before they again attempt to sell the idea it is something it is not.


In my opinion you're spot on. It's very telling and indicative that the "owners" of the skull went to Lloyd Pye first and didn't even approach an archaeologist, anthropologist or paleopathologist because they had already made the foregone conclusion that the skull was indeed of extraterrestrial origin and went with Pye because he was a huge champion of Sitchin and his work. Had this been given to a reputable institution or lab for testing all of the lingering questions would likely have been answered in the past 15 years this skull has been floating around.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

peter vlar
I agree, if the focus were shifted away from the Human/Alien hypothesis a lot of the pseudo scientific aspects would be diminished or at least their "importance" would be greatly diminished.

Now this is really only applicable to the example of determining the difference between humans and chimpanzees and isn't really germane when testing the starchild skull even if by some mad stroke of luck it turned out to be a human/? hybrid because we should expect to see, well, something unexpected in the results, something non-terrestrial.


Just a couple of issues...First the focus between "Human" vs "Alien" needs to be dropped, there may not be significant differences between some species of ET and Terrestrial Humans. In other words; some Extraterrestrials are very probably "Human", just not Terrestrial.

Second, while it would be nice IF non-terrestrials had absolutely unique DNA, probability suggests they don't, and as a result these "unexpected results" that you would like to be "non-terrestrial" may not be so recognizable to the inexperienced (by "inexperienced" I mean those who have not examined Extraterrestrial DNA).

Here is a little exercise; Get your DNA analyzed. Processing ONLY the autosomal, Y-DNA, and of course mtDNA find the probabilities of a "population" match for each. Then using that data alone, determine the probability that you are (specifically) Terrestrial. This little exercise isn't difficult, and for virtually everyone the probability of being Terrestrial is very high (but never 1). Now, using available data from the "star child" do the same...

You will notice a marked difference in the probabilities...and that is your; "something unexpected in the results, something non-terrestrial".






posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

tanka418
Just a couple of issues...First the focus between "Human" vs "Alien" needs to be dropped, there may not be significant differences between some species of ET and Terrestrial Humans. In other words; some Extraterrestrials are very probably "Human", just not Terrestrial.

Second, while it would be nice IF non-terrestrials had absolutely unique DNA, probability suggests they don't, and as a result these "unexpected results" that you would like to be "non-terrestrial" may not be so recognizable to the inexperienced (by "inexperienced" I mean those who have not examined Extraterrestrial DNA).


Please explain why you think "probability suggests they don't" have a unique DNA? What is a non terrestrial entity is non carbon based and instead silicon based? Why would you limit your options unless you were working under the presumption that this skull is non terrestrial without having all the facts in place? It just doesn't seem like good science to NOT cover all your bases.


Here is a little exercise; Get your DNA analyzed. Processing ONLY the autosomal, Y-DNA, and of course mtDNA find the probabilities of a "population" match for each. Then using that data alone, determine the probability that you are (specifically) Terrestrial. This little exercise isn't difficult, and for virtually everyone the probability of being Terrestrial is very high (but never 1). Now, using available data from the "star child" do the same...

You will notice a marked difference in the probabilities...and that is your; "something unexpected in the results, something non-terrestrial".


But why would I limit the parameters of the test and not include nDNA? it's like playing poker with someone dealing from the bottom of the deck. Without a full comparison of course you're not going to get the appropriate results.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

peter vlarWhy would you limit your options unless you were working under the presumption that this skull is non terrestrial without having all the facts in place? It just doesn't seem like good science to NOT cover all your bases.


You wouldn't and it isn't.


When a single inconclusive result weighed against muliple human results equals a conclusion of "Extra Terrestrial", without even knowing what that looks like, you are deep into the realm of pseudoscience.



Latest info: Still human.







edit on 8-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

unb3k44n7
I don't believe the skull was that of an alien being. It was likely that of a human being with physical deformations.

The term Star Child does not originate from the finding such skulls, but rather folklore that has been passed down through generations of native tribes. The discovery of deformed human cranial remains coined as "Star Child" was the latter result of the terms usage.


While I agree that there's no alien here, I'd be interested to see any real (meaning original) Native American use of the term "Star Child." Please link to an authentic Native American website containing any stories using this term.

As far as I'm aware, it was coined by Arthur C. Clarke, in his novel "2001: A Space Oddysey," based on the movie for which he worked on the screenplay.

Harte



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

peter vlar
Please explain why you think "probability suggests they don't" have a unique DNA? What is a non terrestrial entity is non carbon based and instead silicon based? Why would you limit your options unless you were working under the presumption that this skull is non terrestrial without having all the facts in place? It just doesn't seem like good science to NOT cover all your bases.


Firstly, current knowledge shows that many known species share common elements in the DNA. Second, of all the species known, there are very few that are not carbon based. And, while there are species that may be Arsenic or Phosphorous based, whether they are truly "non-carbon" is still debated.

There is little, if any, evidence that there are any Silicon based life forms.

So, while the probability exists that there may be other "kinds" of life, probability also suggests that their DNA is not unique for their "kind" of life. (by "kind" I mean and "Elemental Base" i.e. carbon, silicon, arsenic, etc.)



But why would I limit the parameters of the test and not include nDNA? it's like playing poker with someone dealing from the bottom of the deck. Without a full comparison of course you're not going to get the appropriate results.


In this instance the nDNA may not be required, and should only be necessary in females. We don't need a "full comparison"; most of the specific DNA population groups that can exist on Earth have been mapped, and only very remote and isolated areas have yet to be mapped. This mapping exists across all species.

Since we are talking about "Human" DNA we need only show that it is not related to any Terrestrial Human population.

If it is not related to Terrestrial...




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Please link to an authentic Native American website containing any stories using this term.

You're more than welcome to go look for the links on your own. It's not my job to be forthcoming in taking time out of my day to search for online website links at which to provide to those other who happen to dispute.

I remember stories about it and am indifferent if you are aware or not.
edit on 3/8/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

unb3k44n7
reply to post by Harte
 



Please link to an authentic Native American website containing any stories using this term.

You're more than welcome to go look for the links on your own. It's not my job to be forthcoming in providing links for other people who happen to dispute.
I remember stories about it and am indifferent if you are aware or not.


Translation:

"I've only heard 2nd hand information and never actually read it anywhere let alone from a verifiable source. "

Not for nothin' but the attitude of 'go look yourself it's not my job to provide links so go look yourself' is rather childish and antithetical to the board motto of Deny Ignorance. Instead you are promoting ignorance. For shame.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Nope. Just sick of ATSs apparent new moddo that everything must have an online internet website source at which we must bow down to for accuracy, and in no other way may we provide information unless it originates from a Google search engine source.

I started a thread on this - source discrepancy. But deleted it because of comments like yours that I knew would occur.
edit on 3/8/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


What do you mean? Data to determine exactly what this thing is.. Until the entire genome is mapped no one has a clue.. Given all the anomalies this one skull has , it's impossible to claim human with a defect.. There are no known defects that can produce answers to every question this skull brings up.. The thickness and strength of the skull alone screams something unique. It's also been determined it was an adult and not a child. The wear on the teeth alone reflect years of use.. That being said, look at an X-ray of the teeth..

I'm not making any claims about what this skull may be.. I'm also not going to just dismiss it out of hand like so many others have until all the facts are presented..

If your even remotely interested in this then watch the video..



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by unb3k44n7
 


It wasn't your lack of information I took umbrage with, it was the condescending attitude of the reply. A simple explanation that you're information wasn't from an Internet source and that it was anecdotal would have sufficed in my opinion. I learn the vast majority of what I know from books and lectures not the Internet so I understand the issue with citation nazis. Perhaps a more civil dialogue would go a longer way? On one hand you've got to understand that ATS is littered with people from academia and in that word citations are everything. Conversely those of us used to that paradigm should also try to remember that not everyone is used to citing every footnote and to give a little breathing space now and again Witt going supernova on other posters(note: that wasn't directed at you Harte).
edit on 8-3-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join