starchild project

[cjn6980]

i don't know if this starchild skull is news worthy to anybody that hasn't read about it. if you haven't i urge you to go check it out. after you do and you think there might be reason to do more research on it please go to wh.gov/VzQA for a petition for such studies. i have read and agree it should be studied more even if only to study it for future health and medical research.

 

i hope i'm not breaking any rules for this but i can't understand why getting funding or testing done on this is harder than getting it for a study on colors and how they make one feel. really, i find it fascinating, as well as all the nice names and pleasant responses i receive whenever i bring the subject up. i for one hope it's another "link" in our chain to help prove, or disprove if it comes to that, our evolution. or could there be hope for more intelligent life, and after the people i've dealt with over this i seriously hope something is more intelligent than us.

[Ringer]

This site has a fairly thorough examination of the skull and its history:

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=1417

[cjn6980]

yeah i've seen it but it's out of date. for up to date i went to starchildproject.com. much better reading and the other guy's article is full of bs, half-truths, omitted info and totally closed minded biased views. if he is an archaeologist he isn't a scientist in these matters. he digs in dirt and pulls out.... what? bones for study??? contradictory there don't you think?? why else would we know weather the ice man was a vegan or if the recent skeleton they found is king richard? i think he's jealous he didn't get to discover it is all.

[Ringer]

Well, if you're going to go for an appeal for authority, Lloyd Pye holds only a B.S. in psychology, so for discussion of bones I'd go with the archeologist.

 

I went to starchild project, they contradict themselves and ignore virtually everything that contradicts what they have decided is a forgone conclusion. For example in their discussion of the DNA update they specifically state, correctly, that nuDNA is genetic material from both parents. Then they make the statement that the failure to obtain clear PCR results for nuDNA is due to non-human DNA not being able to match to the primers used. The problem is that since nuDNA is from both parents, and it is established that the mtDNA is human, they should have gotten at least one band, though not two if the other parent is non-human.

 

Another problem is simple genetics, during mitosis chromosome homologs must match for recombination and segregation to occur. If they don't have pairs there are very disturbing side effects even if the parents are close enough relatives to actually reproduce, to assume that something that didn't even evolve on Earth is close enough genetically to do this is extraordinary in the extreme. A failed PCR run isn't even evidence, let alone the kind of extraordinary evidence one would need for this kind of claim.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought,

if mainstream science has come to the conclusion that the "star child" is uninteresting, then mainstream scientists won't be looking at it.

So only the fringe scientists will be researching it.

I't pretty much inevitable that they will be more likely to favour the idea that it's something interesting.

So the more recent "research" is likely to support the idea that it's anomalous even if it isn't.

[Moontanman]

I think the idea that the skull is a hybrid of a human and an alien immediately points to a hoax. The idea that a human and an alien who evolved on a different planet could reproduce is flawed. We would be more likely to be able to reproduce with a tomato plant...

at least we share 3.5 billion years of evolutionary history with a tomato plant. Even if aliens are humanoid there is no reason to think we could reproduce with them. A resemblance in shape does not imply reproductive capability. Would you expect a dolphin and a ichthyosaur to be able to reproduce? A deer and a horse? The very idea is trivially falsified...