Starchild Skull Update: 8/20/2012 "geneticist writes Abstract about Starchild DNA!"

From reading the introduction, they show you physical evidence that this skull is very unlikely to be human because of the deformity but that doesnt rule out natural malformity of a newborn, yet.

Then they start talking more about how this skull would finally be more likely human because they are pretty sure it is based on human complex molecular and cellular levels from what they have analysed. But they will also need to make further reseach to try to link it to human deformity.

Then a few paragraphs into the more complicated stuff states:

''the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. ''

Then it gets into even more complicated stuff that I couldn't really understand, but which didnt discredit or approve anything.

At this point, it really made me think, ''Finally ! An interesting conclusion !''
This skull would actually be pretty human except there would be a difference between the evolutionary process which means it would be an interspecie.

This really makes sense for me since I think the most likely type of alien that would actually be close enough to visit us would actually be a human subspecie.

On the same site from the DNA 2011 UPDATE:

DNA RESULTS

While the physical anomalies obvious in the Starchild Skull are very impressive, only DNA results can absolutely prove that it is other than human.

Early DNA tests were unable to successfully recover DNA from the Starchild's father, leading to the suggestion that the Skull was a human-alien hybrid. However, the most recent tests have uncovered DNA so different from human that the working theory is now at minimum it is a new species, and very likely it is an alien species of extraterrestrial origin.

www.starchildproject.com/dna.htm

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

Lot's of why's there Phage.

Yes. Yes there are a lot of questions about why Pye does and doesn't do things. Things like this:

The author of this Abstract obtained skull bone samples under the condition that DNA samples would be confined to one laboratory.

When you can't attack the data, discredit those behind it?

What data? The yammering about the FOXP2 stuff? See, the thing is that isn't new and none of it has been verified by anyone but Pye and "his" geneticist.

You know very well why established geneticists won't touch this thing, it's not exactly a career boost.

Ah. Only Pye's nonestablished geneticist then. And he's not willing to give his name? Why not? This is truly amazing stuff! Non terrestrial DNA!

The genetic abstract is there, let's hope competent people will take a look at it.

As pointed out, there is no genetic abstract. There is a "plan" for further testing....so he needs more money.

edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Personally, I like Lloyd Pye. He's a very interesting speaker. That said, it does bother me that his sources are apparently ashamed of standing up for their findings. And, when Lloyd gives those findings to us common folk, why is it so hard for him or his geneticist to declare: 100% human. or, Not 100% human?

if you can't follow it's blah ,blah blah not comparable to anything on earth but the little bastard was part human, blah.

reply to post by jiggerj


Well, reading the article the geneticist seems to imply that he's not completely sure what it is. I doubt if the geneticist is going to say it's an alien anyway, I'm not even sure anyone could prove alien. DNA is strange and tied to the junk DNA and diet and possible mutations, an earth created creature could have bones with different minerals in them or DNA with different codes and still be from earth. He's never going to get a reputable researcher to definitely say it's alien. Real Science is rarely definitive.

That skull isn't that far off from a child with progeria

In fact if you look at the skull recon and a child with progeria, very, very similar. It's definitely a human skull, but a very deformed one. Pye saying this level/type of deformity can't occur in humans is BS
2.bp.blogspot.com...
4.bp.blogspot.com...

No scientist would publish their research in that manner (as in the linked article). IN about ten years of reading assorted genetics papers I've never sen anything like that.The whole article is very iffy in tone and format, and, to be brutal, reads suspiciously like the stuff Pye has written himself. Until he puts up the name of whomever he claims wrote this to the article, it's not reliable and should be dismissed until such time as he can prove it's real research. That's how science works: show me the proof.

They already tried to get DNA from it and couldn't. What makes this guy think he can do different?

reply to post by draknoir2


I don't know.
If I found what I believe to be alien, I think I would watch it like a hawk, and with one lab working on it, I am assured there will be no bull crap. If one false report is put out by some big named guy, then no one would believe the truth.

And lets face the facts, it would not be a career booster until it could be proven as fact, however even then it could end a person's career, getting them black listed because the truth may go against what some scientist believe.

reply to post by Heresy


No I'm sorry, but the "star child" skull is different.
Look at the skull of a child with progeria side by side with the "star child" skull.

Now I'm not saying the SC skull can't be a deformity, but that should be easy for any researcher to tell from photos.
Are there any?

Reading some of the comments from people who have read it, claim to understand it, and are explaining what it means, one thing becomes very clear...most of them have no idea what they are talking about.


Here's the most important thing, imho (and it's well past my bed time, so i may not make this as clear as i wish):

Basically, there is a genetic transcription factor known as FOXP2. A transcription factor binds to a DNA sequence and then controls what genetic information is transcribed by that DNA. It dictates what series of proteins is made.
FOXP2 is highly conserved among all mammals and higher forms of life. In other words, it produces a very similar protein sequence even among highly varied species of animals. There ARE species-specific variations, but they are fairly negligible. For instance, the FOXP2 sequence in humans differs from that of mice by only 3 amino acids. There are only 2 amino acids that are not consistent between humans and chimps. Neanderthals have been shown to have the same FOXP2 sequence as modern humans.

However, according to this report, the FOXP2 sequence in the DNA extracted from the Starchild skull differs from that of humans by 18 amino acids. That is far and away larger than the difference between the FOXP2 sequence of humans and any other species for whom genome data is available. Like i said, the FOXP2 sequence between humans and mice differs by only 3 amino acids, this differs by 18.

So, it HAS a FOXP2 gene, which means it is structurally (in a DNA sense) consistent with humans and other known species. However, the FOXP2 functioned completely differently in the case of the Starchild skull, for some reason. It produced a protein sequence that has no similarity to what it transcribes in any other known species. The paper concludes that this is "very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process."

In other words, the fact that it has FOXP2 to begin with means it is structurally consistent with human DNA. But for some reason, the FOXP2 behaved in a completely unheard of manner, transcribing a protein sequence with no known comparables.

reply to post by Maroboduus

most of them have no idea what they are talking about.

No, I understood it basically, I've had to read a lot of human genetics papers: mainly population genetics but I'm familiar enough with the subject. My issue was that the whole thing looks faked, and even reads like stuff Pye has written. The same phrases come up in stuff he's done, and theres no provenance for the 'article'. Some people write in a really distinctive manner. I do, I've been busted as my blogger ID before on forums for my speciality subject. This essay really reads like Pye's written stuff.


"22-8-2012"

So you created an account just to comment on this essay?

reply to post by Maroboduus

In other words, the fact that it has FOXP2 to begin with means it is structurally consistent with human DNA. But for some reason, the FOXP2 behaved in a completely unheard of manner, transcribing a protein sequence with no known comparables.

According to Pye's tame geneticist (unnamed) he recovered a segment of the FOXP2 gene.
According to Pye's tame geneticist (unnamed) that alleged segment of the FOXP2 gene exhibited a large number of "anomalous" features.

Unnamed geneticist. Samples not submitted to other labs. No peer review. Pleas for "donations"....

reply to post by Phage

Pleas for "donations"

How much cash has been donated to him to do this study?.

I meant to add one of those goofy smiley faces after my "they have no idea what they are talking about" comment. Didn't intend for it to be mean-spirited, was just amusing reading some of the attempts at explanation that were completely off-base and/or missing the point. I understand it isn't exactly light reading.

Anyways...I'm not saying this is a credible study. Not claiming people should take it to heart. Was just breaking down what it said about the FOXP2 anomaly, not passing judgment on it.

Originally posted by Heresy
"22-8-2012"

So you created an account just to comment on this essay?

edit on 26-8-2012 by Heresy because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2012 by Heresy because: (no reason given)

Yes. Exactly. I joined on the 22nd just to comment on this article, but then randomly decided to wait 4 days and make about 70 posts in other threads first...
Can you not see that my only post in this thread was on the 26th, a full 4 days after i joined, and was my 70th post on this website? Check my profile, dude. Check my posting history.

What reason, pray tell, would i possibly have for joining just to comment on this thread? All i did was summarize that article when i stumbled upon this thread last night. What agenda would i possibly have for doing so? I never even said whether or not i thought it was credible.
(although, for the record, i do NOT think it is credible.)

This doesn’t mean that it wasn’t of Alien origin. Perhaps when the Alien Reptilians that mated with the humans the two didn’t mix and they obviously had deformed children. Over the years they have been able to overcome these sexual problems and inter breed with us humans.

It's quite possible that the skull here is from the same species that is in this picture. Their skull represented as bigger then ours. Explains how their DNA has more base pairs then ours which would help explain the 17 differences in the 2 DNA strands they used. They also show how the difference in head sizes can be explained.


(p.s it scrolls)

If you believe that these crop circles are indeed created by aliens, it's possible to see that this skull could be one of them.