DNA analysis of Paracas skulls found to be human-like creature.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


the mitochondrial difference is the smoking gun for the artificial manipulation argument. it had real human Mtdna which was probably done in vitro in order for it to survive on this planet. Ever heard of mitochondrial disease? we can fix that today. Maybe in order to survive on this planet the being had to be given natural immunities?
www.lifesitenews.com...

why was there no nuclear dna from the mom or the father recovered?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

so then because something has a FOXP2 it will get hydrocephali? but then if it had it it would show up in the gene but it doesn't, so I guess that's moot. nevermind the myriad other reasons that indicate why it doesn't have it. Just the fact you won't argue any of the physical differences shows you are running out of wiggle room. Just a matter of time......

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

the mitochondrial difference is the smoking gun or artificial manipulation. it had real human Mtdna in order to survive on this planet. Ever heard of mitochondrial disease? we can fix that today.
www.lifesitenews.com...

why was there no nuclear dna from the mom or the father recovered?

I am not sure what you are referring to exactly.

The mtDNA matched 100% to human haplogroup C.

Both an X and a Y chromosome was obtained, and tested, and both were found to be 100% human. The X chromosome and mtDNA prove a HUMAN female mother. The X chromosome proves a HUMAN male father.

The FOXP2 gene mutations is consistent with a child who would suffer from Hydrocephalus.

These are all 100% verifiable facts. Which fact do you dispute?

Every single "anomoly" that Pye's geneticist "discovered" was the result of them using extrapolation to outright lie and commit fraud. Do you understand extrapolation?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


it doesn't have a mutated FOXP2 and you are wrong on all the rest of that

and p.s. did you even bother to check the link? you responded so quickly there's really no way you could've. and I think your confusion has to do with not being up to date with the new discoveries. you gotta get your head outta Novella's back side.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

so then because something has a FOXP2 it will get hydrocephali? but then if it had it it would show up in the gene but it doesn't, so I guess that's moot. nevermind the myriad other reasons that indicate why it doesn't have it. Just the fact you won't argue any of the physical differences shows you are running out of wiggle room. Just a matter of time......

What you are saying makes no sense. FOXP2 mutations are associated with hydrocephalus. EXACTLY what the experts said this child had before any DNA test was done.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

it doesn't have a mutated FOXP2 and you are wrong on all the rest of that

and p.s. did you even bother to check the link? you responded so quickly there's really no way you could've. and I think your confusion has to do with not being up to date with the new discoveries. you gotta get your head outta Novella's back side.

edit on 11-2-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

Are you serious? Your source YOU gave claimed it has a mutated FOXP2 gene.

Compare that with the FOXP2 gene, which in normal humans is 2,594 base pairs long, and contains no variations. 0%! None! Nada! Every normal human has the exact same array of FOXP2 base pairs as every other normal human.

This is not to say mutations never occur in FOXP2. They can and do, and a number of them have been found. However, every mutation is debilitating in some way, and because FOXP2 is vitally important to so many bodily functions, most mutations in it will cause termination of life. When termination does not occur, the mutation's impact on its host is usually severe.

Sooooo mutations in the FOXP2 gene lead to SERIOUS problems .. such as Hydrocephalus (which I proved earlier).

Of the entire 2,594 base pairs of the normal FOXP2 gene, our fragment is 211 base pairs that come from a segment near the center of the gene.

The Starchild's 211 base pair FOXP2 fragment has a grand total of 56 variations!

What do you think variations means? Any HONEST geneticist would say MUTATION... and that the person this came from would have SEVERE problems such as HYDROCEPHALUS.

So we have mtDNA, an X and a Y chromosome ALL 100% human .. and a FOXP2 gene with a serious mutation that would cause MAJOR deformations in the skull and hydrocephalus.

So .. we either have a human child, with major deformations .. or ...



Do you deny that the mtDNA, X, and Y chromosomes were all tested and found to be 100% human?

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

it doesn't have a mutated FOXP2 and you are wrong on all the rest of that

and p.s. did you even bother to check the link? you responded so quickly there's really no way you could've. and I think your confusion has to do with not being up to date with the new discoveries. you gotta get your head outta Novella's back side.

edit on 11-2-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

I have covered all of this for years. I have studied every single development in depth. The level of fraud is on the level of Rossi.

Pye had two different labs examine DNA from the skull. BOTH came back with the same answer. 100% human. So then Pye stopped using independent labs and hired a geneticist to give the answers he wanted. EVERY independent review has come back with the same finding, 100% human. His pet geneticist does some dirty tricks to try to create evidence where there is none, but anyone who looks at the evidence will see the truth, it's fraud.

ETA: Look up translocation. It can happen with the FOXP2 gene.

Perhaps a summary of this ridiculous fandango so far:


Some guy, a self proclaimed ''expert'', with a website and no relevant formal qualifications says he had some skulls - Foerster.

Parts of them were sent to another guy with no relevant formal qualifications -Pye

That guy said he was sending them to a ''self taught geneticist'' veterinary doctor in Texas for genetic testing - Melba Ketchum

Foerster affiliated to Aaron Judkins who tours the Paracas skulls for money as well as stating on his website he wants to test them for being ''Nephilim'' and asks for funding, also for his hotel expenses.

Foerster also affiliated to David Childress and Giorgio Tsoukalos known for authoring and selling books on their ''Nephilim'' agenda

Foerster claims on his fundraising website that he illegally smuggled ''artifacts'' out of Bolivia via Peru and had also illegally done so with teeth in 2012

Foerster said he ''believes in'' Ketchum despite getting flak for making false claims about Bigfoot

Foerster and Ketchum tout for money on their websites for ''DNA testing of Paracas skulls''

Foerster announces that while the Paracas PEOPLE are little known about humans, the DNA results allegedly showed some results that weren't known to Genbank

Foerster claims the ''unknown'' DNA as being ''alien'' DNA

Foerster contacts a reporter and says Ketchum is behind the analysis of Paracas skulls ''aliens'' claim

Ketchum reported seeing ''5 Bigfoot in one day and a 10 foot Bigfoot sitting in a tree'' in Texas

Ketchum claimed to have tested Bigfoot DNA and announced on a fake science journal (after being refused publishing by anywhere reputable on the grounds of non scientific research, unprofessional testing and no peer review) that the 'Bigfoot' samples (various found hair, teeth etc) were of a female human and an ''unknown hominid''.

Ketchum actually tested found hair etc, there was no Bigfoot body or bones from which DNA was extracted

Ketchum 'writes' a novel about a love story between an ''unknown hominid'' and a human female.

Ketchum cites ''well documented research'' that claims Bigfoot DNA stemmed from Perissodactyls and ungulates (horses, Rhinos,Tapirs) as part of her ''Bigfoot hybrid'' theory

Ketchum tries selling genetic 'results' on her website for $30 each instead of publishing for peer review

Reporter doesn't believe Ketchum's claims and has the ''bigfoot'' DNA samples tested at a professional lab, the results are that the tested DNA is from an Opossum.

Ketchum is sued and dumped by a genetics facility due to not conforming to legal regulations required for professional testing.

The story is all over the media as a hoax

Foerster contacts the same reporter he called to say Ketchum was the DNA analyst of the Paracas skulls and now claims she wasn't.


Conclusion:

Ketchum's isn't qualified for making the specific claims about DNA that she made, nor for proposing theories as a scientist in any of the areas she made claims about and has no credibility as a genetic analyst.

The fact that Forerster ''believes in'' a non credible ''self taught genetic analyst'' for testing skulls makes his judgement questionable.

There are no released results of any DNA test for any of the claims made by Foerster or Ketchum

Reputable scientists have berated Ketchums reports and theories

There is nothing credible about any of the tests or claims made by Foerster or Ketchum on these skulls or ''Bigfoot''

The combined associations of those involved in these claims suggest an agenda.

doubtfulnews.com...

The former directors of the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology – JAMEZ – have warned Melba Ketchum to stop saying she bought their journal and obtained peer review for her Bigfoot DNA study.

www.jasoncolavito.com... dna.html

So Foerster obtained DNA samples from elongated skulls found in Paracas, Peru in the 1920s and preserved at a museum near the site. It is unclear whether he had proper export permits for this work since ancient remains are not typically allowed out of the country without permits, and Foerster recently started a fundraising campaign where he explicitly said he had smuggled artifacts out of Bolivia via Peru. Human remains are specifically on the International Council of Museums’ Red List of prohibited Peruvian antiquities. (I raised this issue when he exported the teeth back in 2012.)

Anyway, Doubtful News has much more to say on the nuts and bolts of why Foerster’s claim that the skull contains anomalous DNA shouldn’t be trusted. What shocked me is that Foerster entrusted the DNA analysis to Dr. Melba Ketchum, the woman who self-published a paper last year claiming to have proved via alleged Sasquatch DNA that Bigfoot was an ape-human hybrid. Ketchum has further ties to Genesis Quest, a company working to “prove” the existence of the Nephilim and to sell their investigation as a reality series to the Discovery Channel. Ketchum once claimed Bigfoot was a Nephilim Bible giant.

Now since Foerster is a coauthor of a book about elongated skulls with David Childress, who is a close colleague of Giorgio Tsoukalos, who argued that Bigfoot was an extraterrestrial hybrid sent here by UFO pilots, the entire alternative/fringe history ecosphere is beginning to collapse in on itself toward a bizarre singularity where ancient astronauts, Bigfoot studies, and the Nephilim all come together in a chorus of hosannas uniting New Agers and Biblical fundamentalists in praise of God, or the aliens they take for gods.

doubtfulnews.com...
doubtfulnews.com...
doubtfulnews.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...
research.amnh.org...

reply to post by bottleslingguy

you never bothered to read the website have you?

I have. I'm always in search of a good laugh.

I see lots of claims on Pye's various websites, but never any evidence.

In 2012, Medical Modeling of Colorado, USA, used detailed scans of the Starchild to create an exact 3D replica of the inside of the Skull, showing in moderate detail what it's brain would have looked like.

So the skull was not provided directly to Medical Modeling, just "detailed scans"? What kind of scans? How was the model created from these "scans"? If you blindly believe what you're reading at the website and don't know even the cursory answers to these questions, you're not being rational in your belief.

so now all you have to do is go there. I'm sure you'll say it's all made up and they're just pulling our legs for money. (truth be told I've never given Lloyd or the SP a dime. I've read his book but someone gave it to me. so I've got nothing invested in this)

No, unlike you, my mind is not made up. I'm just not going to assume that it's alien because Lloyd Pye says so. Show the evidence.

do you think the skull is not a skull that once lived in a live creature, as in a plastic model? or do you think the skull is real bone but more of an amalgamation to appear as natural morphology? be careful how you answer because it's a slippery slope on either side.

I think the skull is from a human child with some extreme deformities. I've stated this before. Others have presented evidence to support that in this thread.

I notice that you ignored my request that you present evidence for your claim that "the bone itself is not even close to human bone". Do you have any evidence to support that?

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Ever heard of mitochondrial disease? we can fix that today.

Sorry but no you can't. There is no definitive treatment for mitochondrial disease and there is no cure.

I recently came across a story about a 9yr old girl whose brother has this and she wrote a book to help raise funds for research on this disease. It's a kids book and it's a sweet story. There is no cure and it can't be fixed.

Sorry to side track but you can't fix that disease.

reply to post by iterationzero


my friend, just LOOK at the gosh darn thing. what's not rational is to continuously ignore the morphological features and there is a lot more than just an appearance of a hydrocephalic skull going on. You say you've read the evidence, so what's your explanation of the fibers and reside inside the bone? what about the chemical make up of the bone? the thinness of the bone symmetrically throughout the skull? how about the non-human muscle attachments in the neck and temporals? there are so many details involved that if it was a fake something would show up. Lloyd was smart but nobody's that smart especially when they let others study it. are you saying you just don't believe anything about it? are you saying everyone involved is just making this up? One of the things Lloyd said was that he offered it to anyone willing to study it. I don't know why more didn't take him up on it, it's not like he was hiding it or anything.

reply to post by mblahnikluver

ok but I think it's fair to say there is a procedure that, at our level of medical sophistication, leads to the "three parent" situation. that's really another smoking gun with this whole thing. When it is determined that the dna of the skull/being was artificially manipulated 900 years ago, all bets are off and the Fat Lady has sung and Elvis has left the building.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


This little straw man you've invented needs to go away. Nobody has ever said the skull was a fake. You keep interjecting that on your own. We have all agreed the skull is real, that it is human and that is suffered from an extreme deformation.

You are the one repeating claims made by Pye about the skull, with no scientific evidence to back it up.

We have TWO SEPARATE DNA TESTS done in 1999 and 2003. Both agreed that it was 100% human. Do you deny those tests happened or their results?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


If that was going to happen it would have happened already. It isn't going to happen because as long as it doesn't they can string people like you along.

raymundoko
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

If that was going to happen it would have happened already. It isn't going to happen because as long as it doesn't they can string people like you along.

such a foolish statement.

reply to post by raymundoko

what kind of deformity results in fibers in your bone tissue? I know why you guys keep avoiding those little details and your panic just makes this more real

reply to post by bottleslingguy


www.skepticblog.org...

There is strange red residue and fibers in the bone of the skull and the fibers resisted cutting by the dremmel tool used to cut the skull – This can probably be explained away if the proper experts got their hands on the skull for testing but here are some theories: There is something called cysteine “residue” that can appear in the skull (again this residue can be more common in Progeria, I believe). There are also different types of fibers like Sharpey’s Fibers which can appear as hair-like fibers in the bone of the skull….However, I am leaning towards collagen fibers because it links more with point 8 and the excess collagen that might be found in the skull of someone with Progeria – plus collagen fibers apparently have great tensile strength which might explain not being cut by the dremmel (?). Another possibility: world scientists have recently found noodle or knot-work shaped fibers left by microbes that exist in iron or copper mines. The microbes apparently live off the ore and produce strong polymer fibers as waste. The skull was found in an abandoned mine shaft in Chihuahua’s “Copper Valley” making it is likely it was resting in an abandoned copper mine so these fibers could easily have been left by these newly discovered microbes (or similar bacteria) as well.

There are MANY possibilities for why the "fibers" were in the soft tissue. Stop falling for Pye's tricks.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Ultimately two separate DNA studies found this:

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[4]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged 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.[3]

This exact information has been posted previously in the thread, and ignored by you.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by iterationzero

 

my friend, just LOOK at the gosh darn thing. what's not rational is to continuously ignore the morphological features and there is a lot more than just an appearance of a hydrocephalic skull going on.

So DNA testing proves it's human .. but you can "look at it" and tell it's not? That's impressive.

How about you stop avoiding the questions and answer questions. Was DNA testing done on the X and Y chromosomes? What were the results?