http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLA82DF5D90AF0CD7A&feature=player_embedded&v=OvJkUzgkOh8
Well, I'm trying to post the actual videos, but so far unsucessful. If anybody sees this and can tell me how to do it, I'd appreciate it. Thx.
Starchild skull on the left, human skull on right.
In youtube, click on Share.
Click on Embed.
Copy the code.
In Firefox on Chess.com, paste the Embed Code.
Click on Preview.
Click on Edit.
Click on Post Comment.
This method will not work with IE. I have been told it works with Chrome.
The vast majority of such "finds" have later been found to be faked. Consider the case of Piltdown Man.
@corrijean: Thanks for the info on how to post a video! And thanks for looking at this forum. I'm still seeking a conversation with someone who might be prepared to discuss the nature of the possible fakery in light of the evidences provided. I understand if your interest in such matters does not extend that far. I've seen many of your posts, and I enjoy reading them.
Thanks.
I have actually read quite a lot about anthropology, and forensic anthropology was a special area of interest for me. The case of Piltdown Man can be very instructive for demonstrating how people can be fooled by fakery.
According to this article:
the starchild skull has been dna tested and has human dna.
Thanks for the article. I'll read it. As I have been aware of this issue for some time now, naturally I've read many of the writings which have the opinion that there is nothing too unusual about "the Starchild skull" (as it is styled). But none of those articles of contrary opinon (admittedly, I haven't read the one you've provided yet*) actually address the infomation the skull's researcher provides. It's as though they haven't looked at the material. Again, I'm more than comfortable with the fact that you will do as you will, but since you did go to the trouble of providing me some material to consider, please allow me to ask you; did you view the videos linked above? May I respectfully ask if it is your normal practice to consider both sides of a question prior to making a determination? Frankly, if you haven't done so, with an issue such as this you are certainly to be forgiven. And not to be contrary, but your information about the DNA is in error, at least according to the researcher who has been the one who has done all of the DNA testing that has been done. It's all in the short videos above. [Edit added when this post was some 3 days old --*Now that I think of it, I believe that I actually did read this article about a year ago.]
I watched them. They approach the subject with a breathless desire to believe.
They seem to have little understanding of speciation and the outcomes of inter-breeding between species on earth, let alone the difficulties that would be presented with an even more foreign creature from another planet.
I've read several books on genetics, dna, evolution, etc., and quite frankly, it sounds to me as if these people just don't know what they are talking about. It sounds like they are ignorant of the relevant scientific fields and are using the inaccurate interpretation of laymen to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion they wanted to reach.
I am no expert myself, but even my cursory familiarity with some of the underlying scientific disciplines is enough to show a lot of holes in their theory.
I read the article you provided. I must say that I found the numerous comments with an opposing point of view much more cogent. The views opposing the article’s conclusions tended to quote the facts surrounding the issue. Is it possible that this is what you meant by a breathless desire to believe? The other side tended not to talk about specifics of the case but only referenced generalities, airily dismissive “it’ll never get off the ground” style. Actually, the author of the article begins by using the first half of it recounting myths swindles and mistakes of the past. I guess he did that in order to condition readers to accept that he was going to lump the Starchild Project in with them. Well, we all know that there was/is/will be a lot of baloney in the world, and we also all know that sometimes, new discoveries are made. So for that we need specifics.
Here’s an old discovery. When a new discovery is made, it can be very difficult to find anyone who will admit to not knowing it right from the start. So I can’t answer for the breathless tone, all I’m interested in are facts, and what we can do with them.
Speaking of facts, the videos you viewed do clarify that there is no interbreeding involved in the parentage of the skull. You are to be forgiven for missing that since you saw them after having reviewed and apparently accepted some of the erroneous and outdated misstatements actually, that are still being attested to by various of Pye’s detractors, none of whom have ever been even close to the artifact.
Y’know, I read pretty widely m’self, but perhaps not as widely as you. I’m no scientist, no, but we all have the necessity to be able to suss out fact and sense and correctness especially when the experts disagree (reference the list at the beginning of one of his videos of the doctors, cranial-facial surgeons, ophthalmologists, radiologists, etc. that Pye names, locates, and credentials in support of his findings with their professional reputations, and having actually examined the skull). I believe I can be forgiven for pointing out the lack of any equivalent corroboration by the debunkers. So when a guy shows me a bone that is ½ the thickness and ½ the weight of ordinary bone, yet twice as hard, due to it’s unique chemical composition making more like tooth enamel than bone, according to spectral analysis, then I’m listening. That was merely a fact, not breathless desire.
And then when the same guy shows me DNA studies that reveal that this person had 100% human mitochondrial DNA and 0% human nuclear DNA making it 100% non-human (a fertility doctor might be a good source for an explanation of how this could be. Pye explains it in detail for those who deign to review his website), I say interesting. And then, the same guy goes and shows me numerous other anatomical anomalies in a person who lived at least until early adulthood (judging not from tooth eruption, but from wear) any one of which anomalies in a human would mean death in early infancy, I say hmm, this guy seems to have something. Tell me more.
Corrijean, I respect you. I hope you know that I know that you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. And it may be that yours is correct and mine is wrong. Please accept my sincere thanks for responding to this forum that I posted. For courtesy I will continue to respond as long as you wish. However, this is not the conversation that I wanted to have. I wanted to speak to a skeptic, like me, who would find it interesting to discuss the possible significance of unique durable fibers, laced throughout the matrix of the bone, and a tiny neck with a suspected lack of vocal apparatus for example. But you’ve gone way past skeptic. You’re giving me the impression that you think you know. And what you know doesn’t allow for the conversation I’d like to have. Maybe you’ll toss me around on the virtual chessboard sometime. Regards
The vast majority of such "finds" have later been found to be faked. Consider the case of Piltdown Man.
Too true. But the vast majority of everything is wrong at first. Always do we go through a lot of wrong stuff before we get it right. OK, Piltdown Man. Contrast that with the introduction to academia of the duck-billed platypus. See what I mean? Everything has to be taken case-by-case.
The videos and the dna clearly show the mitochondrial dna is human. That would be impossible if the skull did not belong to a person that was at least half human. An egg implanted in a female would not have the egg carrier's dna. This is another point the videos confuse/obfuscate. The father dna is likely human, too. The actual dna report says:
"Single amplifications for fragments containing the diagnostic mutations for Native American haplogroups A, B, C and D[2] did not reveal a known Native American haplogroup, however, the extraction did not amplify consistently. A single amplification of a fragment of the mtDNA first hypervariable segment (HVSI) between np 16210 and np 16328 was sequenced using a cycle sequencing procedure with ABI Big-Dye 3.1 chemistry and analyzed on an ABI automated genetic analyzer. The sequence obtained revealed a transition relative to the Cambridge reference sequence at np16273. This sequence did not match either any personnel with access to the ancient DNA facilities or a sequence obtained from Mr. Pye. Subsequent amplifications of this fragment were not successful and the sequence could not be confirmed. Attempts to amplify fragments of the amelogenin gene located on the X and Y chromosome[3] were uniformly not successful."
This statement does not mean that the father was not human.
Problems with the dna facts the way they are presented in the video:
http://alienresistance.org/AnAnalysisoftheGeneticsoftheSupposedStarchild.pdf
Another skeptic viewpoint:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/03/19/some-starchild-feedback/
You are aware that this same Lloyd Pye who is the person behind the starchild skull is also a strong proponent of Planet X and Bigfoot theories?
When a genuine new hominid species emerges, the members of the scientific community (and me) are happy to accept it.
Homo floresiensis is a good example of a recent genuine find of a new species. It generated a great deal of excitement.
The reason people are skeptical of starchild is because it is likely a fake or a severe misinterpretation, not because they are closed minded.
Skull sure looks hydrocephalic to me.
The very idea that an alien would come to Earth with the sole idea of, pardon my language, fcuking with another life form, is ill. Would you fly to, say, the Beta Centauri star system and start having sex with whatever life form you find there? Didn't think so.
Thanks to all for doing me the honor of your posts on this topic. I welcome all your posts, but for the record, I would like to say again that I’m interested having a conversation with someone who is interested in poring over the alleged facts of the matter with me, and then dismissing it if warranted, rather than just dismissing it out of hand.
(Continued...)
Here are some very interesting videos about a humanoid bone skull found in Mexico. Humanoid but drastically different from human. According to the bone's steward, it has been examined by experts who say the differences are due to neither deformaties nor diseases. The experts are named with their credentials. The DNA testing done thus far indicates the bone is not human. The Project speculates that the likeliest explanation is that the skull is that of an extraterrestrial. If you haven't seen this info before and have an interest in such matters, these videos are very provocative viewing.
[I used the word ‘extraterrestrial’ so let me say here that I personally have no idea and make no claims for where the skull may have originated. As I posted earlier, it is the Project that speculates that the likeliest explanation is that the skull has extraterrestrial roots. But so far as I know, the only “evidence”, of that, if you wish to call it such, is that “ain’t nothing like ‘im ever been seen anywhars around these yere parts”. Maybe he’s from the center of the earth, ever heard of the Hollow Earth theory? Maybe he’s from an underwater city of Atlanteans. Maybe he’s from a large community of aliens and has an apartment in New York City from which he time traveled into the past and died 900 years ago. I don’t know where the heck he came from. And won’t care until there is some evidence. So far as I’m concerned what we appear to have here is an anomalous non-human humanoid skull]. [Which could well be an alien for all anybody knows.]
http://youtu.be/XzvqZFhQtpU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLA82DF5D90AF0CD7A&feature=player_embedded&v=OvJkUzgkOh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_vqT1sN8og&feature=player_embedded