Aliens HAVE visited earth - Finally... tangible evidence

reply to post by arizonascott


not sure what you were reading but from the dna testing section of the wikipedia is :
DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, 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".[1] 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.[7]

Also, Explanations
Explanations for the skull's unusual features include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child,[8] brachycephaly, Crouzon syndrome,[9] congenital hydrocephalus, and progeria.[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org...

To everyone that frowns upon people "asking for money".

If you found an artifact, or had some other concrete evidence of alien life, wouldn't one of your first thoughts be "this is gonna make me rich!"

True, every time I've seen anyone in this field asking for money I laugh a little inside at the people gullible enough to actually write cut people a check.

When I think about it a little deeper, if someone did have real proof I doubt they would be giving it away for free.

Hell, if I had a clear video of an alien, I'd sell it in DvD at 19.95 a pop. That doesn't make my alien video any less real.



[edit on 21-3-2010 by Blender]

reply to post by Blender


Well at least your VIDEO would be REAL evidence and you would sell the film and book rights let someone else do the hard work!

Just as a follow-up, here is the e-mail I sent to the "[email protected]" e-mail address. I assume Lloyd Pye will receive it at that address, unless informed otherwise.


EDIT: I just noticed he has a personal address listed on his website, so I forwarded the same e-mail to that address, as well.

I'll be sure to post any response I receive on here, as well.

Hello,

After examining both your website (starchildproject.com) as well as a few other sites purporting to have "evidence" about the origins and features of the specimen, I have a few questions that I was hoping Lloyd Pye, or whomever answers these e-mails, could help with.

1) Though you mention cradle-boarding and hydrocephalus on the sites and summarily rule them out, you never mention progeria. Many of the features of this skull (namely the aplasia of the frontal sinuses, deformiity of the sphenoid and ethmoid leading to shallow and misshapen eye sockets, as well as the enlarged vault of the cranium) are strongly suspect for this disorder. What is your evidence against this being a possible source for the morphology?

2) In the DNA testing you cite as evidence that there is a non-human DNA contribution in the cells of the specimen, you only examine a very small, non-forensically valuable portion of the nuclear DNA. Why is this? If you were able to produce amplifiable nDNA (which your site seems to suggest you were), why not use current forensic and molecular standards to establish identity? You could try to sequence non-homologous regions of DNA, thus ruling IN human and ruling OUT non-human genetic contributions, or you could use a criminalistics approach and probe the 13 CODIS sites, which should provide some idea of mutation and heredity. If you don't feel the DNA is of a high enough quality for such an analysis, why not use a library approach? That is, use a whole-genome amplification method with very general primers to amplify any available DNA, which you could then BLAST against the available human genomes and look for homology? This is all very basic analysis and would only take a few weeks work.

3) As for the mystery "fibers" and "residues" found in the skull, have you had them examined histologically? All I've seen on your site are raw images from SEM, which doesn't provide much information on the tissue. Why not examine them for protein content, collagen type ration, elastin content, or cellular content? Why would you not consider that it could be dehydrated cell product, that is, endosteum and periosteum, or even dehydrated vasculature?

Any information would be greatly appreciated, and I'll be sure to share it with the members of abovetopsecret.com in an unedited fashion.

Thank you,
Lana P.

[edit on 3/21/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


G'day VneZonyDostupa

Those questions are very well expressed

It will be very interesting to see if you get an answer.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks, Maybe!

I tried to keep it fairly specific so that whomever answers doesn't have much wiggle room and must answer the direct issues. Hopefully, we'll have some answers in a day or so, depending on how long it takes Mr. Pye to respond.

Okay, here's his response. Not much beyond more empty promises and ah hominems (though I'm not sure what I was expecting. I'm sending a response to his e-mail, and will post his next response as well. See below the quote for my analysis of his "answers".

Hi, Lana. This is Lloyd. I'll answer your questions below in ALL CAPS.


From: Lana M Piace
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 6:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Questions for Mr. Pye

Hello,

After examining both your website (starchildproject.com) as well as a few other sites purporting to have "evidence" about the origins and features of the specimen, I have a few questions that I was hoping Lloyd Pye, or whomever answers these e-mails, could help with.

1) Though you mention cradle-boarding and hydrocephalus on the sites and summarily rule them out, you never mention progeria. Many of the features of this skull (namely the aplasia of the frontal sinuses, deformiity of the sphenoid and ethmoid leading to shallow and misshapen eye sockets, as well as the enlarged vault of the cranium) are strongly suspect for this disorder. What is your evidence against this being a possible source for the morphology? THIS WILL BE ABOUT MY 100TH TIME TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. A PROGERIA VICTIM IS STILL A HUMAN, WITH ALL THE HUMAN PARTS OF THEIR CRANIUM IN PLACE, IF NOT ENTIRELY INTACT, INCLUDING VESTIGES OF SINUSES, AN INION, A FORAMEN MAGNUM IN THE USUAL PLACE, INNER EARS OF THE USUAL SIZE, AND EYE SOCKETS, WHILE SOMEWHAT DISTORTED, OF MUCH MORE TYPICAL SIZE AND DEPTH THAN THE STARCHILD. PROGERIA VICTIMS ALSO DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SET OF TEETH IMPACTED IN THE MAXILLA ABOVE THEIR PERMANENT TEETH, THEIR BRAINS ARE NOT 1/3 LARGER THAN NORMAL, AND THE BONE OF THEIR SKULLS, WHILE SOMEWHAT THINNED IN PORTIONS OF THE ENLARGED VAULT, IS NOT UNIFORMLY THINNED THROUGHOUT. THE STARCHILD IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT IN ALL OF THOSE POINTS AND MORE, LEADING US TO SAY A COMPARISON OF THEM IS AN APPLE TO AN ORANGE.

2) In the DNA testing you cite as evidence that there is a non-human DNA contribution in the cells of the specimen, you only examine a very small, non-forensically valuable portion of the nuclear DNA. Why is this? If you were able to produce amplifiable nDNA (which your site seems to suggest you were), why not use current forensic and molecular standards to establish identity? You could try to sequence non-homologous regions of DNA, thus ruling IN human and ruling OUT non-human genetic contributions, or you could use a criminalistics approach and probe the 13 CODIS sites, which should provide some idea of mutation and heredity. If you don't feel the DNA is of a high enough quality for such an analysis, why not use a library approach? That is, use a whole-genome amplification method with very general primers to amplify any available DNA, which you could then BLAST against the available human genomes and look for homology? This is all very basic analysis and would only take a few weeks work. OUR GENETICIST KNOWS FULL WELL THAT HE HAS TO PRESENT AN AIRTIGHT PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS FOUND IN HIS INITIAL FORAYS INTO THE STARCHILD'S GENOME. WE HAVE OFFERED THE INITIAL REPORT OF HIS FINDINGS ONLY BECAUSE I HAVE INSISTED SINCE DAY ONE OF THE STARCHILD PROJECT (IN FEBRUARY OF 1999) THAT I WOULD ALWAYS REVEAL WHATEVER I KNEW ABOUT ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS AS SOON AS THAT INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE. IN THIS CASE THE GENETICIST DID NOT AGREE WITH MY APPROACH AND WANTED ME TO WAIT UNTIL HE COULD DELIVER A PROOF SO OVERWHELMING THAT SKEPTICS AND CRITICS LIKE YOU COULD OFFER ONLY MOUSE SQUEAKS OF PROTEST, IF THAT MUCH.

I FEEL THAT POLICY OF CONSTANTLY BEING AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE HAS SERVED ME WELL FOR THE PAST 11 YEARS, AND I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE IT NOW. OUR GENETICIST HAS FOUND A VERY STRONG INDICATION THAT MUCH OF THE STARCHILD'S GENOME IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OTHER SPECIES ON EARTH. HOW MUCH? WE HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT WITH A FULL GENOME RECOVERY USING THE 454 TECHNOLOGY. BUT IF ITS RATIO IN THE FIRST FEW SAMPLES IS ANYTHING TO JUDGE BY, THE FINAL RESULT WILL STAGGER EVERYONE.

IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL CONTINUE TRYING TO APPEASE OUTRAGED OR ANNOYED MAINSTREAMERS, WHICH YOU SEEM TO BE, AND OUR GENETICIST WILL CONTINUE DOING WHAT HE KNOWS HOW TO DO, WHICH IS TO ULTIMATELY SATISFY YOU AND ALL THE OTHER SKEPTICS AND CRITICS WAITING TO POUNCE. NEITHER OF US ARE STUPID....WE BOTH KNOW HOW THE SLASH-AND-BURN GAME IS PLAYED, AND HOW WE MUST PLAY IT IN ORDER TO SURVIVE WHAT WILL FOLLOW THE FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT. THAT WILL COME, OF COURSE, WHENEVER HE FEELS HIS CASE IS AS AIRTIGHT AS HE CAN MAKE IT.

3) As for the mystery "fibers" and "residues" found in the skull, have you had them examined histologically? All I've seen on your site are raw images from SEM, which doesn't provide much information on the tissue. Why not examine them for protein content, collagen type ration, elastin content, or cellular content? Why would you not consider that it could be dehydrated cell product, that is, endosteum and periosteum, or even dehydrated vasculature? GEEZE, LANA, WHERE WERE YOU WHEN WE WERE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO DO THIS KIND OF WORK FOR US? ALL I EVER HEARD FROM EXPERTS WAS THAT IT WOULD COST A FORTUNE TO ANALYZE BOTH THE FIBERS AND THE RED RESIDUE BECAUSE NO PROTOCOLS CURRENTLY EXISTED FOR RECOVERY OF EITHER ONE (THEY ARE MICROSCOPIC IN SIZE), AND ONCE THE PROTOCOLS WERE DEVELOPED, A WHOLE NEW BATTERY OF TESTS MIGHT NEED TO BE CREATED TO DETERMINE WHAT THESE UNKNOWN THINGS MIGHT BE. SO THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT SOUND OR SEEM NEARLY AS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD AS YOU DO.

Any information would be greatly appreciated, and I'll be sure to share it with the members of abovetopsecret.com in an unedited fashion. SURE, SHARE AWAY.

Thank you,
Lana P.

1) Mr. Pye fails to realise that a devastating mutational event, like progeria, brings with it the added risk of other mutations, many of which are not shared among progeria patients and are unique to the individual.

2) Mr. Pye keeps referring to "previously released" genetic results, but fails to acknowledge that those results were neither indicative nor supportive of non-human source DNA.

3) Mr. Pye seems to be unable to explain why no analysis has been performed on the fibers, so he instead results to tongue-in-cheek ridicule of my suggestions, all of which are standard analytical practice and inexpensive.

[edit on 3/21/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Hello VneZonyDostupa,

Thank you for sharing your correspondence with us. I for one am keeping a close eye on this thread (as I have past ones) as I find it facinating.

I would like to point out to you (not that you need me to) that I do not find the tone of your queries to Mr Pye to be either "outraged" or "annoyed". Quite the opposite. In the correspondence I have seen from him (now and in the past), he seems to have his bristles up.

Thanks for staying level headed.

- Hermit

[edit on 21/3/2010 by Netties Hermit]

Originally posted by Blender
To everyone that frowns upon people "asking for money".

If you found an artifact, or had some other concrete evidence of alien life, wouldn't one of your first thoughts be "this is gonna make me rich!"

True, every time I've seen anyone in this field asking for money I laugh a little inside at the people gullible enough to actually write cut people a check.

When I think about it a little deeper, if someone did have real proof I doubt they would be giving it away for free.

Hell, if I had a clear video of an alien, I'd sell it in DvD at 19.95 a pop. That doesn't make my alien video any less real.

All true, of course - but, I want to address the innocent side of asking for money...

I would agree with this assertion if the evidence came as easy as you're implying (i.e. video of an alien) you could distribute it for free - no problem. But, as someone above, in their argument used the old adage, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Some of that evidence would come at an extraordinary price. Alas, a simple video is not a viable solution in this instance. No, sadly, the only thing that will provide a definitive answer, once and for all, is very expensive laboratory work. Why should the brunt of the cost fall solely upon the individual who was 'fortunate enough' to come across the artifact (which is precisely what has happened, until now - he hopes). Everything he IS doing as far as notifying the public IS completely free - the testing itself is not.

Suppose you owned a machine shop, and some doctor came up with an idea for a new design for a brace that would cure his son's severe scoliosis, and could likely serve as a model for curing more cases around the world. But, he needs to fabricate the original prototype himself to test on his son and present to his colleagues. All he needs is access to a special/expensive tool that you happen have in your shop - but it required that this most expensive, utilized, and profitable tool in the entire shop would be tied up for 5 weeks thereby drastically affecting your bottom line and ability to conduct business, what would you do?! Exactly. [now, that's medicine - this is alien archaeology. not a great example, but you get the gist - nothing is free]

He's already dedicated the last 11 years of his life to this project - you think it's wrong for him to ask for a little assistance? Scientists ask for funding ALL THE TIME from private investors and corporations. Ridiculous.







[edit on 3/22/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa



Thanks for taking the time to email him and post the correspondence. I guess all any of us can really do now, is play the waiting game. This is the test he's been wanting for 7 years.

My guess is, either Pye will be vindicated, or he will disappear - good for everyone, no?


reply to post by Netties Hermit


'Bristled up'? Yeah, I guess I picked up on that, too, but can you really blame him? This guy TRULY believes what he is working on - yet, 50% of the people on this thread are approaching the subject as if its SOLE purpose was to defraud people of money - absolutely absurd. I'd be a little pissed off, too.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
This guy TRULY believes what he is working on

I've net people who truly believed they were Napoleon Bonaparte - did'nt make them right though.

He does seem to be a touch uptight when anyone questions his 'evidence'. You'd think that if he's answered these questions 100's of times he's just present this info on his website and direct those asking to the FAQs section.

-m0r

So has anything actually came out of this yet... or is this another thread to sink into obscurity?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


G'day VneZonyDostupa

His reply didn't really help a great deal.....it was just a repeat of his usual responses.

We're going to have to wait for his next testing regime to be completed.

However, if he doesn't like the results, I reckon he'll reject those results & we'll be back on the "merry-go-round".

I think this will just drag on for a long time.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

And this is suppose to be News?

Brings to mind "CONTACT," Jodi Foster's Screen dad says..."I don't know Sparks, seems like allot of wasted space to me." Well I can tell you I have seen very weird things that could not be explained. Even the Bible speaks of "Other Worlds" and even "Alien" is used in the Bible KJV; Explain the face and Pyramid on Mars? The U.S. Govt knows Aliens and UFO's are real, why else such the stink that occurred in Roswell? Why are people threaten when they get too deep in this matter. And Why wont the Govt just simply say OK they exsist.

If they didn't exsist why are so many files locked and secured or some people I talk to in the USAF wont disclose anything.
My cousin became hostile and almost said something but changed his words in the midst of his anger then cut contact with me because I asked him about the "two incidnets" in New Mexico, the one no one talks about, or Arora, TX incident.
He was in the USAF in 1950. So he would have known the men involved, he had the rank. Why does my very best friend
tell me (he was from WPAFB) "You will become unexistant if you continue your quest! LEAVE IT ALONE!" He wouldn't even discuss the the Piney Woods Incident. He became very angry when I asked about "Pine Gap."

Folks I'm sorry this is NOT News.

2002 August Quark – Monthly Science monthly science magazine"
80% believed that other life forms exist in the Universe
55% believed that there is a foundation in truth for the existence of UFO’s
38% answered no.

www.alieninfluence.com...

www.thehiddenrecords.com...

"Czar"

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
entire shop would be tied up for 5 weeks

OK let's use your 5 weeks timeline for an estimate of how long the testing should take.

He's already dedicated the last 11 years of his life to this project - you think it's wrong for him to ask for a little assistance?

If the testing takes 5 weeks which the experts seem to suggest is a reasonable time frame, why is it that after 11 years we still don't know the result?

Is it because there were earlier results and he disregarded the ones he didn't like? Does it really take longer than 5 weeks to do this testing? Does it really take 11 years?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
1) Mr. Pye fails to realise that a devastating mutational event, like progeria, brings with it the added risk of other mutations, many of which are not shared among progeria patients and are unique to the individual.

Thanks for pursuing this. Yes, his answers aren't surprising.

I noted in the UFO Hunters presentation, the "legend" of how the skull was found says that they first saw a deformed hand, if true one might presume belonged to the same person as the starchild skull and might show that multiple deformities occurred in the same individual as you suggest. Their "science guy" Kevin thinks it's a hydrocephalic skull, and he disputes Pye's statement that asymmetry always accompanies that condition, saying symmetry may be uncommon, but it can happen.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Pye makes a lot of the extraordinary size of the skull and claims it's 200cc larger than the average human. It isn't clear where the large capacity measurements are from and based on the video comparison it actually isn't larger than an adult human. It looks much smaller in comparison to Pye's own head. His figure of 1600cc is large, but not unusual...

UFO Hunters demonstrates how they poured birdseed into the skulls to measure the cranial capacity, and apparently get 200cc more volume inside the deformed child's skull than in an adult skull. This starts about 1:30 in part 2 below. If you compared a child to a child or an adult to an adult the difference would be even more striking, so the 200cc difference may be understated from comparing a child to an adult.

Here's the UFO Hunters reconstruction of the starchild skull, they tried to make it look alien-ish by giving it black eyes and gray skin, but even Bill Birnes, the hybrid theory proponent, admits it looks more human than he expected:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ad8b12df995.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the 3 parts of the episode, I'll embed part 1 and give links to the other 2 parts:



UFO Hunters Starchild Skull part 2 of 3

UFO Hunters Starchild Skull part 3 of 3

At the end of part 2, beginning of part 3 they talk to a Harvard PhD, David Aguilar, expert on exobiology, and he's pretty open minded, giving his informed speculation about ET life forms.

But when Bill Birnes tells him the theory that the starchild skull may be an alien-human hybrid in Part 3 at 3:36, he has two words: "Prove it"

And we are still waiting for the proof after 11 years.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

The request for "more" funds is disturbing.

I can imagine a whole bunch of well known anf for that matter unknown Philanthropists, whom if approached by a respected group of scientists with this kind of information would/could easily pump a $1 million+ into this group and realize its full potential - if indeed this DNA discovery is what it claims to be.

So why the grassroots appeal for monies?

Best

Bravo

I've net people who truly believed they were Napoleon Bonaparte - did'nt make them right though.

*Bad French Accent* "Why Do you look down when you speak my name? You Dare to call me short? "

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18210091d11e.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 22-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by Bravo111
I can imagine a whole bunch of well known anf for that matter unknown Philanthropists, whom if approached by a respected group of scientists with this kind of information would/could easily pump a $1 million+ into this group and realize its full potential - if indeed this DNA discovery is what it claims to be.

Because the philanthropist would probably consult with a professional before pumping $1 million into it. And here's what one professional has to say:

The Starchild Project by Steven Novella, MD, February 2006

Lloyd Pye and Mark Bean, have put together what they call the Starchild Project, and have an extensive website dedicated to their investigation of these skulls (Pye and Bean, 1999).

I do not take their “unexplainable” claim at face value. The authors never directly consider congenital hydrocephalus as a possible explanation, although they dismiss it along with a long list of natural deformities. Hydrocephalus literally means “water on the brain,” and results from a blockage in the normal flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from where it is made inside the brain to the space surrounding the brain and spinal cord where it is reabsorbed. As a result of the blockage, CSF builds up inside the brain, pushing outward on the brain and skull. Because in young children the bones of the skull have not yet fused together, the skull is free to enlarge to accommodate this buildup of fluid.

If a child suffered from untreated hydrocephalus until age four or five, their skull would display distortions in almost every feature. All of the proper bones, prominences, holes, and sutures would be present, as they are in the Starchild skull, but they would be deformed and displaced. This is exactly what we find in the Starchild skull.

Hydrocephalus builds up over time, so a child with this disorder could survive several years, and if untreated (today hydrocephalus is treatable with surgery to drain the fluid) would probably die at several years of age. The resulting large bulbous head would be vaguely reminiscent of the typical image of a gray alien.

The authors virtually ignore this mundane explanation, and dismiss it on unsound grounds.

Well, a DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is 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.

Pye also added a logical fallacy to the list of logical fallacies according to Dr. Novella:

The authors claim that they have consulted with 50 experts (whom they will not disclose) yet not one of the experts was able to adequately explain the Starchild’s appearance on the basis of a natural deformity. They are committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, but without specific references the cited authorities cannot be considered legitimate or compelling.

What should we call this fallacy, instead of "appeal to authority", let's call it "appeal to unsubstantiated authority"?

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Hiya Arbie, I posted a reply somewhere around page 6 or 7. It has a link to the UFO Hunters Starchild thread. It got fairly demolished. JackPhotoHobby and others raised some questions about Pye and the show. It was a very enjoyable thread with a lot of ideas discussed.

Ha i just laughed out loud at the video of the starchild. In Part 3 where they are reconstructing the tissue around the skull, to give them a better idea as to whether it was human or alien... they give it pale tissue and black eyeballs! and SURPRISE SURPRISE... it looks alien!! haha so biased. Give it white eyes and pinkish tissue then see what it looks like.

I don't know what shocks me more. the drivel that appears on this site,

or the fact you guys are surprised when people talk of conspiracy theorists as nut jobs.

You shoot yourselves in the foot.