The Starchild Skull

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No it isn't, did you read the lab reports? Use science and logic when reading their reports. If it is biased you can easily tell. You are just on a dedicated debunking mission.

There are no real reports anywhere, only what the pro-alien-sites are posting. Link here a real lab report / peer reviewed article, not a link to a post on a website. That's all hearsay, there is no real evidence.

Also, anybody with a minimal understanding of genetics would question the following: if the starchild mother has been proven to be Amerindian (shown by the mtDNA = she had 2 X chromosomes) and the father is an alleged alien, where does the Y chromosome comes from? Y chromosome is only male human and can only be inherited from the father. Or are we also assuming that aliens have the same genetic code we have?

We are suggesting that Aliens, or at least these type of Aliens, Indeed share similar genetics with Humans.

This is one reason why no smoking gun has ever been discovered..What might be found eventually is that the rest of the universe may share all similar DNA as well, with all earths species

originally posted by: SPECULUM

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No it isn't, did you read the lab reports? Use science and logic when reading their reports. If it is biased you can easily tell. You are just on a dedicated debunking mission.

There are no real reports anywhere, only what the pro-alien-sites are posting. Link here a real lab report / peer reviewed article, not a link to a post on a website. That's all hearsay, there is no real evidence.

Also, anybody with a minimal understanding of genetics would question the following: if the starchild mother has been proven to be Amerindian (shown by the mtDNA = she had 2 X chromosomes) and the father is an alleged alien, where does the Y chromosome comes from? Y chromosome is only male human and can only be inherited from the father. Or are we also assuming that aliens have the same genetic code we have?

We are suggesting that Aliens, or at least these type of Aliens, Indeed share similar genetics with Humans.

This is one reason why no smoking gun has ever been discovered..What might be found eventually is that the rest of the universe may share all similar DNA as well, with all earths species

So you don't even know if DNA exists elsewhere in the universe, much less intelligent humanoid Aliens capable of traveling to earth, but you are suggesting that the genetic testing proves both?

Ever try to build an inverted house of cards in a wind storm?

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: tanka418

Whatever people may think, peer reviewed findings /articles are better because they are submitted to experts in the field to be assessed and impartially reviewed... which brings to question all the findings about the Starchild as they have not been shared and evaluated by experts.

You shouldn't assume that any scientist "wants" to review the body of work. Thus, failing to receive you "mark of reality" begins to mean rather little. Just how far do you think a peer review of this is going to further the career of the reviewer? And, without the benefit, how many are going to put in the time to understand?

That said; can YOU not perform such a review? Are you wholly unaware of that science? If that is really the case; should you be forming any opinion at all? Are you incapable of applying logic, learning, and intelligence to this issue? Again; if you can't...should you be forming opinion?

Of course DNA testings are done by machines, but they are read, interpreted and assess by medical geneticists. In this case geneticists disagree with all the misinformation that have been posted on the 'pro-alien' sites:

I guess I just too much of an automation "fan"...you see, I would / could do much of that by computer (numerical analysis)...Added to the notion that what we are attempting to do here does not require your "medical geneticist", and would probably do better without him. A micro-biologist on stand-by is really all we need.

A numerical analysis of the data could, and does reveal much more that you imagine is there. For instance a quick reading of just the DNA analysis material on the starchild site reveals much...numerically speaking. by way of example...your sneezing about the FOXP2 gene...you know; you completely missed that! What was being said was that in the region of sampling, across all Human haplogroups there are NO differences, and even when comparing t other species the differences are small. But, when comparing with the starchild's analysis, the differences are many...very much not consistent with your desires.

Other areas of testing and focus revealed similar conditions...far too many differences for our starchild to be human...But you somehow missed that important bit of data...

Please don't start going on about the "single source" for this data; that is not my fault, nor does it really present a problem. IF One is attempting to understand, One must make do with the available data...pretending that the data is invalid simply because you don't like it is not valid.

And regarding aliens genetic codes... who knows? They may share our genetic codes, they may not, we simply don't know.

If we all use the one thing that distinguishes us from all the other animals roaming around, we find that we know and understand far more than suspected.

Logically, there is no reason for ET to be significantly different than Terrestrials...Remember, evolution is not random, neither is the creation of life. And then there is good ole Hermes; "As above, so below."

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: SPECULUM

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No it isn't, did you read the lab reports? Use science and logic when reading their reports. If it is biased you can easily tell. You are just on a dedicated debunking mission.

There are no real reports anywhere, only what the pro-alien-sites are posting. Link here a real lab report / peer reviewed article, not a link to a post on a website. That's all hearsay, there is no real evidence.

Also, anybody with a minimal understanding of genetics would question the following: if the starchild mother has been proven to be Amerindian (shown by the mtDNA = she had 2 X chromosomes) and the father is an alleged alien, where does the Y chromosome comes from? Y chromosome is only male human and can only be inherited from the father. Or are we also assuming that aliens have the same genetic code we have?

We are suggesting that Aliens, or at least these type of Aliens, Indeed share similar genetics with Humans.

This is one reason why no smoking gun has ever been discovered..What might be found eventually is that the rest of the universe may share all similar DNA as well, with all earths species

So you don't even know if DNA exists elsewhere in the universe, much less intelligent humanoid Aliens capable of traveling to earth, but you are suggesting that the genetic testing proves both?

Ever try to build an inverted house of cards in a wind storm?

I tried that once in Stormwind...it worked out just fine...(course I had a gnome Mage standing there to help

add the rest of the scope of morphological and chemical differences et voila! where is the "human" brain? human chemistry? human morphology? you're hanging on by a thread and your desperation shows clearly

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Blah blah blah. No, it's human. Move on. Seriously.

originally posted by: obscurepanda
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Blah blah blah. No, it's human. Move on. Seriously.

Prove it!

Lloyd Pye provided good data, what do you have?

originally posted by: tanka418
Lloyd Pye provided good data,

His data showed it was human!

What data do you have that shows it was alien?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
Lloyd Pye provided good data,

His data showed it was human!

What data do you have that shows it was alien?

No actually Lloyd Pye's data did not show the skull to be Human. If you got that out of his data, then you failed to understand the significance...

What the data shows are far too many differences for the skull to be Human. However you need to understand the nature of those differences. In the data the author talks about a segment of DNA which contains significant number of differences. You interpret this as being of no significance; you are very wrong. While this segment is small, it is from a region of notable stability...meaning, that in all of Human kind, this small segment almost never changes, yet there are a large number of differences...that segment in you is identical to the same segment in "George Washington", or indeed, virtually anyone of the 7 billion+ Humans living.

The data I have used is the data published on the starchild site...perhaps IF you approached this with an open mind, and actually did some "homework"; you know made a read effort to understand the data...

The report on the site is very well done, albeit, incomplete; virtually anybody who is not predisposed to reject the data should be able to gain a true / good appreciation. And, while there may still not be enough data for you; the reason for your rejection will be quite different...you know; more logical, scientific, intelligent, thought-out...

originally posted by: tanka418
lol

What I have is the same as you...I'm just honest about it!

I have actual labs with actual tests from actual experts. You have nothing. How is that the same?

I've not seen you post or link anything that could be called authoritative, yet somehow you think your data is better. I guess that shows what you know of data sciences...

I posted actual tests from experts in real labs. How is that not authoritative?

I think Agartha put it rather well:

There are no real reports anywhere, only what the pro-alien-sites are posting. Link here a real lab report / peer reviewed article, not a link to a post on a website. That's all hearsay, there is no real evidence.

Agartha meant there are no real reports for YOUR side of the fence. Agartha clearly agreed there are reports proving this to be 100% human.

The reports supplied are all from "pro alien" sites...said as IF that is something awful; when in fact it is not and their data is as valid as any other...

Bias, look it up, it's extremely awful.

You want peer review...of the results and report provided by a robot, a bit of Human contrived technology that is wholly incapable of error. What you really want is a report that confirms your desire, as differentiated from reality. You balk at the notion that Lloyd Pye didn't buy into the academic fallacy of the "peer review". You do know that the "peer review" is only a mechanism to make money, and not necessarily for the scientist, but for the publishing company.

Pye did buy into it. Pye believed in it so much he paid for it, twice. I also never asked for peer review, I asked for reputable expert. We have several, all of whom Pye believed in so much he personally chose them and PAID THEM.

Did you know that many scientists are required to publish several "peer reviewed" papers every year...just to keep their jobs This is more of an educational institution thing, but various industries also engage in the practice...this destroys the value of the peer review. Plus, all a peer review can do is help to insure that Mr. Scientist employed proper procedure, and isn't going off the reservation as it were.

Seems you don't even know what the argument is and are just a talking head for your viewpoint regurgitating things you hear. No one asked for peer review.

You speak of reputable labs, I seriously doubt you are capable of knowing the difference...I would also think that any company who invested in the technology to do DNA analysis would also get accredited...you know, so that that several thousand dollar robot of theirs can begin to pay for itself. How many of Mr. Pye's "labs" did not have any accreditation? Probability would suggest that number to be 0, and all of the labs used to test the starchild skull were properly accredited.

You are aware that IF a lab doesn't return the result YOU want; that doesn't make it wrong". And, IF you should happen to disagree...then it is probably you that has the misunderstanding.

I agree. Every lab returned 100% human. Just because it's not the result YOU want doesn't make it wrong. IF you should happen to disagree...then it is probably you that has the misunderstanding. So you are in agreement with me that you are the one wrong. Thank you.

originally posted by: tanka418

Probability would tend to suggest that DNA is remarkable similar across non-terrestrial species...just as it is across terrestrial species. This notion is supported by many current scientific theories.

No, it would not, and no it is not. You make that up, source that claim. Source that alien life would have identical X and Y chromosomes, I will wait.

Although, the reasoning behind the lack of data is more likely a "greed" thing; in that the Pye camp is holding on to data that belongs in the public domain, but, they want paid for it. It is kind of understandable, after all it was their efforts that are bringing this data to light, and DNA testing can be quite expensive (gotta pay for those "Bots")

I already sourced the data, it's been released for years. The only data NOT released is the work done by Ketchum, because the last time that was released and looked at Ketchum turned out to be a fool and was humiliated when it turned out the "Bigfoot DNA" was an opossum.

Oh, I guess I am sort of presuming that all y'all are aware that virtually ALL DNA testing is done by machine, and has little to no Human involvement. [Oh, and Occam...that's where I come in...you know...the guy with no relevant skills that actually design and program the machine...that poor dumb fool who actually knows more about the mechanics of DNA testing than the microbiologist he is working for!]

Great go get a job in the field and become an expert, until then, you can make all the claims you want. The REAL experts have weighed in, and proven beyond doubt the Starchild is human.

originally posted by: SPECULUM
We are suggesting that Aliens, or at least these type of Aliens, Indeed share similar genetics with Humans.

This is one reason why no smoking gun has ever been discovered..What might be found eventually is that the rest of the universe may share all similar DNA as well, with all earths species

Sorry, that's a copout way of saying no amount of evidence will ever persuade me because I will make stuff up.

Only humans have human DNA, only humans have a human X and Y chromosome.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: obscurepanda
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Blah blah blah. No, it's human. Move on. Seriously.

Prove it!

Lloyd Pye provided good data, what do you have?

I have Lloyd Pye's data, I sourced it, the data Pye has concludes 100% human. Have you even looked at anything presented here or simply carried on like a mindless drone.
The Pye data is 1999 and 2003 DNA testing, both labs concluded the subject is a 100% human male.

originally posted by: tanka418
What the data shows are far too many differences for the skull to be Human. However you need to understand the nature of those differences.

The only data you like is the Ketchum data which deals with the FOXP2 gene ... which you should take your own advice, that data actually shows the skull to be 100% human and you don't even understand it.

The FOXP2 gene is associated with natural deformities such as hydrocephaly. Exactly what experts have concluded this is.
services.nbic.nl...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No, it would not, and no it is not. You make that up, source that claim. Source that alien life would have identical X and Y chromosomes, I will wait.

You will have to do a little leg work...

Sources:
The Emerald Tablet-- Hermes -- "As above, so below".
Current theories in panspermia -- astrobiology
Earth like planets are the 'rule'-- modern astronomy

Earth like planets as it turns out are rather common, in that they are Earth sized, in the habitable zone of virtually every star. Stars that can support life, as it is found on Earth, constitute a rather small percentage (Sol sized, class G2 stars)...14% or so if memory serves. Stars like Zeta Reticuli, and 39 Tauri are like this...

I already sourced the data, it's been released for years. The only data NOT released is the work done by Ketchum, because the last time that was released and looked at Ketchum turned out to be a fool and was humiliated when it turned out the "Bigfoot DNA" was an opossum.

So you have evidence that the tests were "botched?" Unless you do, this is wholly irrelevant. Or is this mostly a case of bias?

Great go get a job in the field and become an expert, until then, you can make all the claims you want. The REAL experts have weighed in, and proven beyond doubt the Starchild is human.

Actually, I've already done that...the "job" thing...have been a consultant / independent contractor for over 40 years. I have been involved is sever seminal projects, including the machine in front of you that you take for granted. As well as the vehicle you drive. I have for the past, almost 20 years, been involved in data acquisition (sometimes exotic), management and analysis...the automotive and insurance industries still use my software. I have developed biological systems for several Universities and includes research into managing DNA data specifically...so, while I'm not a biologist...I'm still awe bit expert. Though I will admit that my strong suits are Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Physics and Mathematics.

In the not very distant future I will be developing methods of performing searches on SQL based data engines to compare DNS marker data to find close temporal relatives. This will likely start shortly after I finish my current project...

originally posted by: tanka418


You will have to do a little leg work...

Sources:
The Emerald Tablet-- Hermes -- "As above, so below".
Current theories in panspermia -- astrobiology
Earth like planets are the 'rule'-- modern astronomy

Earth like planets as it turns out are rather common, in that they are Earth sized, in the habitable zone of virtually every star. Stars that can support life, as it is found on Earth, constitute a rather small percentage (Sol sized, class G2 stars)...14% or so if memory serves. Stars like Zeta Reticuli, and 39 Tauri are like this...

None of that says what you claim. None. There is no evidence for your claim at all.

So you have evidence that the tests were "botched?" Unless you do, this is wholly irrelevant. Or is this mostly a case of bias?

The tests were performed by an amateur, and as I showed, the results actually support 100% human. I sourced that already.

Actually, I've already done that...the "job" thing...have been a consultant / independent contractor for over 40 years. I have been involved is sever seminal projects, including the machine in front of you that you take for granted. As well as the vehicle you drive. I have for the past, almost 20 years, been involved in data acquisition (sometimes exotic), management and analysis...the automotive and insurance industries still use my software. I have developed biological systems for several Universities and includes research into managing DNA data specifically...so, while I'm not a biologist...I'm still awe bit expert. Though I will admit that my strong suits are Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Physics and Mathematics.

In the not very distant future I will be developing methods of performing searches on SQL based data engines to compare DNS marker data to find close temporal relatives. This will likely start shortly after I finish my current project...

So nothing at all in the field we are discussing, and you admit it, and then claim to be an expert anyways.

Actual experts, who Pye found credible and reliable have already weighed in and found 100% human. You already said anyone dismissing that is just not living in reality and the problem is them. So by your own admission, the problem is your understanding, as the data proves 100% human.

What do you say about that data, you know, since you are an expert.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Only humans have human DNA, only humans have a human X and Y chromosome.

This is absolutely untrue!

As I have already pointed out; Chimpanzee, Bonobo, and some others have DNA that is virtually indistinguishable from Human. The DNA is so close, in fact, that IF Chimp or Bonobo are analyzed using Human primers; they will appear "Human" with the major differences being the allele counts at some of the various chromosomes; specifically the second and eleventh.
Humans have a chromosome "fusion" at these locations.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
What the data shows are far too many differences for the skull to be Human. However you need to understand the nature of those differences.

The only data you like is the Ketchum data which deals with the FOXP2 gene ... which you should take your own advice, that data actually shows the skull to be 100% human and you don't even understand it.

The FOXP2 gene is associated with natural deformities such as hydrocephaly. Exactly what experts have concluded this is.
services.nbic.nl...

If that is the most current data, then yes. Well gee whiz, ya know, when I looked up the FOXP2, it went on abut speech, as differentiated from hydrocephaly...

And, no, it does not show the skull to be "Human", that is only your imagination.

Perhaps you should actually read the report...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
What the data shows are far too many differences for the skull to be Human. However you need to understand the nature of those differences.

The only data you like is the Ketchum data which deals with the FOXP2 gene ... which you should take your own advice, that data actually shows the skull to be 100% human and you don't even understand it.

The FOXP2 gene is associated with natural deformities such as hydrocephaly. Exactly what experts have concluded this is.
services.nbic.nl...

If that is the most current data, then yes. Well gee whiz, ya know, when I looked up the FOXP2, it went on abut speech, as differentiated from hydrocephaly...

And, no, it does not show the skull to be "Human", that is only your imagination.

Perhaps you should actually read the report...

Go back to that source. Look under diseases. Search for Congenital hydrocephalus. Run away.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
None of that says what you claim. None. There is no evidence for your claim at all.

Well... you have not spent enough time researching what I said t actually reach ay conclusion what so ever! Care to try again? perhaps actually READ what refer to...

The tests were performed by an amateur, and as I showed, the results actually support 100% human. I sourced that already.

Wow, thats on hell of a amateur! Quite serious about is hobby? I mean he spent several 10's of thousands on analysis equipment. Which, by the way, was designed to be as "user friendly" as possible, and therefore easy to use, relatively speaking...BUT, that "Bot" will allow almost anybody, even you, to obtain world class results...mostly because some uneducated idiot like me programmed it...amazing what comes from a lack of expertise!

So nothing at all in the field we are discussing, and you admit it, and then claim to be an expert anyways.

I thought we were talking about microbiology and genetics...my bad...Just what do you think "biological systems" are? Oh, and then there is that DNA search engine...

Actual experts, who Pye found credible and reliable have already weighed in and found 100% human. You already said anyone dismissing that is just not living in reality and the problem is them. So by your own admission, the problem is your understanding, as the data proves 100% human.

What do you say about that data, you know, since you are an expert.

Sorry man, I don't know where you get the notion that a sample with a projection of 1000's of differences in a stable region of the Human DNA sequence constitutes "100% Human"...perhaps you could explain that...

There are multiple instances reported where there are far to many differences for the skull to be Human.

So...can you? Explain these differences...?