|
Starchild Project
|
Posted By:
Art D
Oct 09, 2004
|
The Starchild Project now claims to have had a DNA analysis performed on a fragment of bone from the starchild's skull, but all they have been able to 'prove' so far is that the mother was an amerindian. They expect to have a nuclear DNA test performed soon to determine the father. Any comments?
|
Comments
|
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 > |
Captain Al
|
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 | 10:55 PM
The following is a direct quote from Lloyd Pye, one of the "researchers" on the project:
"To the best of my knowledge, the top lab in the world for what we need done is the Kureha Special Laboratory in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture. That's about 200 kilometers northeast of Tokyo. What I need to determine is whether or not we can trust the results of any analysis we get from them. This was no different during the long struggle to find the proper DNA lab. Just because a lab exists, that doesn't mean we can trust any result they give us. If one person working on the analysis has a private agenda that is strongly antithetical to what we're trying to accomplish, we're toast. Such tests are too easy to sabotage. We might as well not even try it."
-Lloyd Pye
In other words, they will only believe the results if it agrees with their pre-determined conclusion.
|
Brenda Layland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 | 05:09 PM
I've just seen the pics of the "Starchild" skull. It looks like a typical skull-pressing. Very common in pre-columbian Mexcio. |
Maegan
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 | 12:44 PM
So the poor kid had a big head...I really feel worse for the mother. 10cms was NOT enough.
I couldn't tell according to the info I've read, but do they know how old the skulls themselves are? Has anyone gone back to the original site to verify the original discoverer's story? Maybe if they had the skeleton they'd be able to determine more. |
lab owner
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 | 07:50 AM
After very brief 'starchild' research, I've concluded that Lloyd Pye is accepting donations to pay for dna examinations while the fact is, almost any dna researcher who runs their own lab would be willing to conduct these tests for free. I can't imagine someone charging any kind of fee for dna testing on a skull believed to be alien or partially alien! Weather or not this skull is actually alien in origin, this guy is making a furtune! |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 | 02:33 PM
Lab Owner,
Welcome to the world of pseudoscience. Their motto:
"Never let common sense and contrary evidence get in the way of perpetuating a myth (especially if you can make money with it!)." |
healthyskepticism
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 | 01:46 AM
Listen to the arguments regarding the symmetry of the deformity and how the backbone of the child attached to the skull to balance the extra brain capacity (1/3 larger capacity than human). Deformity is never symetrical in nature. As for looking at pictures of it, we have eye sockets that go into our sinus cavities. Big empty black holes behind our eyes. This does not have that. They are shallow and do not go back into a sinus cavity like a human. The knitting of the bone is indicitive of someone with non existent or next to no jaw muscles for chewing. According to analysis by a craneofacial surgeon.
As for junk science, isn't it junk science to debunk something before even looking at the evidence? How can you have a skeptical discussion of something that you are not even reading the information on? No reputable members of the medical community want their names attached to the idea of a possible extra terrestrial or hybrid skull. You make it sound like DNA labs would be anxious to go to the expense of running the tests. It took finding a craneo facial surgeon in Vancouver Canada to finally do a cursory analysis. All he states is that the shape of the skull is not consistent with what nature defines as deformity. Deformity is ASSYMETRICAL. And the knitting of the bones on the side of the jaw and the small mouth means that this thing probably was not a big chewer. In some ways the skull is an improvement in form and function over a human skull. Although granted not esthetically.
The bone is stronger than human bone yet is half as dense. Etc. microscopic cabling or threads in the bone that are hard to cut through. There are a lot of interesting facts surrounding the case. The mitochondrial/nuclear/paternal DNA will be extractable once the protocols for extraction are completed next yr on the project involving neadrethal man which they are currently incable of extracting DNA from bone samples that old. The current skull is only a few hundred yrs old and was discovered in a cave with the skeleton of an adult holding the child. No doubt someone will make the dumb joke about them being ostracized for having a butt ugly kid.
There's skeptical. And then there's gullible. Open mindedness is supposedly a balance between the two. Since no one has discussed any of the relevant facts surrounding the case I will assume that this is the Church of Hardline Skeptics. What does a Incan boarding have to do with this skull? Are you sure you even looked at the same pictures??? This has more skull than a normal human skull whereas skulls that went through boarding have less capacity and slope INWARD. Not bulging craniums. 30% more space inside the skull is a LOT more brain capacity. Read some of the text at the guy's websites. Not just look at the pretty pics. Or if reading is a problem listen to some of the video interviews online. |
healthyskepticism
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 | 01:46 AM
I'm not sure what I believe but some of the comments or lack thereof in this thread show ignorance or a desire to argue for the sake of it and not for the sake of discovering truth. Is this a contest to see who can make the most sarcastic comment without knowing anything about what the comment is about? That's not skepticism. You are doing nothing to promote your point of view other than saying you believe it's not possible in which case no amount of evidence will matter.
As far as making money goes, this guy isn't PT Barnum or Ripley's with a sideshow business. And books of this nature very rarely make their money in return over publishing costs if they even do that. This whole topic is too far out in left field and unbelievable to be successful enough to earn a living off of.
Some people genuinely believe in their convictions enough that it becomes a part of their life. Just as some disbelievers follow the same strong convictions that might alter the equilibrium of their current belief system. Quite honestly I'm surprised that he is hesitating on getting the DNA analysis done. Everything I have read or heard of the guy over the yrs gave me the impression that he was too trusting in the average person. For instance he sounded surprised when National Geographic did a butcher job last yr and included a very short segment on the artifact (a couple of mins of the entire show) and included none of the details and painted him out to be a fringe believer in Ancient Astronaut theory.
Like I said I don't know what I believe but I do believe the guy has a sincere conviction in what he is doing. And the explanation he presents is very interesting. |
Gunnar
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 | 05:27 PM
What I want to know is where is the rest of the body that belonged to this "starchild" skull? Did they just find the skull by itself with the female skeleton? |
havoc
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 | 11:18 AM
What a scam. Send this guy money and you deserve it...... |
Noe Whan
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 | 10:17 AM
The skull has iron fillings all the way though it. It's defiantly not human.
Get over it, aliens exist always have always will. Arn't we technically aliens?
😉 |
mulder
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 | 11:10 PM
lloyd pie=charlatan shake shake shake that dead baby skull lloyd till all the money runs out....what a scumbag |
Andrew
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 | 09:57 PM
I'm the healthiest of healthy skeptics. I'm also very morbid so I've done a whole hell of a lot of reading into this thing because that skull is messed up. Believe me - I've sucked the net totally dry for info on this. The deformations are not due to swaddling. They produce flat surfaces. The skull (Starchild is a stupid name) is FLATTENED on the back, but not flat. Big difference. Clearly not inflicted. It's clearly not random deformity either. The argument about symmetry there is a grand slam-type deal. Deformities are never symmetrical. That's like having a perfectly spherical cancer. It's NOT congenital defect. Further, although deformed, it all keeps a perverse proportion - the fact the neck is precisely in the radically altered centre of gravity (junk science, huh?), the cut-down chewing muscles for a clearly cut-down jaw. Wasted chewing muscles in the usual spot woudl result from defect. Proportionally smaller muscles anchored in bold new places seems a little elaborate to be the result of bodgy DNA, really. The whole skull cavity thing is not so troubling as all sorts of things could have contributed to that, but paired with the rest and you just want to know, don't you? Then there's the small point of the radically different bone structure. Thinner, lighter, stronger... yeah, swaddling really does that - I've read about it in junk science like Dickhead Skeptic Monthly. I'd be very interested to see the skeleton - it doesn't follow the bone's properties would be confined to the skull.
Oh, and he's not a kid. The wear on the teeth is another grand slam-type deal. Unless he chewed his tongue in the womb, he's much older than five or six.
But it's odd no-one seems to want to help this guy out. This is the classic case for a healthy skeptic to shine, outlandish consiracy nuts to dribble on their keyboards and hardline skeptics to sound like they haven't bothered reading anything about the case. I love being a healthy skeptic. |
Michael Dowling
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 | 08:15 AM
If you read within the script from Pye concerning the joining (all by money giving. he says that anyone donating more than $250 will get full reimbursement after the positive results are returned. This is because of the further money generated from "the most important skull in the world". So the idiot at home says 'wow, I may as well donate $250, because I'll get my money back'.. Err. No they wont because it isn't an Alien Head. If there was a possibility of it being alien all the tests would have been done by this time and for zero cost to the owner. It would be that important to science. Can't people understand this hucksterism? |
healthyskepticism
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 | 09:22 AM
The "script" is the one in your mind that determines the outcome without reading the part of the website that has nothing to do with any of the material he sells or how he is raising his money. There's a certain amount of resentment for how anyone involved in any type of paranormal research earns a living. It's a double standard of sorts. Unless they are working in what some feel is a "normal" job, they don't deserve to earn a living at whatever their life's passion is.
At this stage it's all a moot point anyway. He will never "prove" anything with his artifact. Your supposition that "if it were real" falls in line with the thinking of, "if UFOs were real they would land on the whitehouse lawn". Even if he were somehow to prove that the DNA were non human, or if the skull came to life and started telling the truth for itself, it still would not be enough "proof" for someone that has already made up their mind. That proof would end up becoming more ammunition for your prejudice that it is a hoax. Who knows what it is? But it's safe to say what it is NOT. It's not a deformity. It's not a hydrocephalic skull and from the composition of the bone, it's not a contemporary or known human race. It's also possible that it is not extra terrestrial in origin.
Instead of using the "money back guarantee" logic(?), why not do some research on the Ica skulls of Peru. They are similar in a lot of ways to the Pye skull in that the cranial capacity far exceeds the normal human size. Boarding does NOT double the size of the cranium.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/monster.htm
These skulls have been around for a long time yet no one has done any scientific research worthy of explaining this bizarre increase in size either. The Pye skull is a little more striking however because of the eye socket size and arrangement.
Anyway... if opening your mind is out of the question you might try to at least *use* it in a way other than to point out the nature of how he is conducting his business. Or perhaps you can come up with a constructive alternative for how someone can go about raising the money to conduct these prohibitively expensive tests without raising your hackles? |
David
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 | 04:05 PM
.....This is Definately an alien skull. Case closed. |
david
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 | 12:17 PM
so theirs absolutely no evidence leading anybody to believe anything other than this is a deformed human skull... not only that, it may not be 'deformed' but evolution may have skipped a few million years or something on this paticular skull... nothing more, nothing less.. No alien DNA was extracted, and nothing anymore interesting was recovered other than the mother of this was human. father's dna couldn't be extracted probably because it was damaged... hence the deformity |
Michael
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 | 11:33 PM
Q: What is that alien looking skull named "Starchild"?
A: A hydrocephalic skull with the facial bones snapped off
Oops, seems Lloyd forgot about geological activity and it's capability of sheering or even crushing fossils and bones. This is fine though as Llyod has entered into the "cult" phase of his beliefs. Sadly his contributors are unaware that a vast majority of laboratories will gladly commence DNA testing just to have that chance of finding an "Alien Skull".
For the record their is no stigma in the scientific community of the discovery of alien remains. In fact today's scientific climate is that of unprecidented desire to find evidence for extraterrestial intelligence. The issue here is that Lloyd did not find anything remarkable. So instead of taking this to mainstream academia where his "Starchild" has already been adequately classified as very terrestial in origin, he needs to cherry pick his "experts" and circumvent one of the key pillars of science... Peer Review. |
Paul
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 | 11:58 PM
A hydrocephalic skull with the facial bones snapped off??? With perfect symmetry to both sides of the skull in all areas? Are you serious??? I think you would have been better off saying it was a dolphin that escaped from a lab after under going genetic mutation. I can kind of see where you are going with the peer review point although it's a process open to people in the scientific community (which he doesn't happen to be a member of so his "peers" are laymen with an interest in the artifact). I definitely get the impression that you have read little or none of the literature regarding the skull and it's unusual characteristics if you are saying that bones can be altered geologically with symetrical and SEEMINGLY purposeful design. Bone is not the same as a lump of coal being compressed into a diamond. Your inadequate "explanation" also does not account for the characteristics of the bone itself. The porousness of the bone throughout and the filiments discovered that strengthen the bone. Were these snapped off as well or just kind of stuffed into the bone by mother nature? One or two odd characteristics could be chalked up to a coincidence or freak of nature but the list of unusual properties of the skull is fairly extensive. But one would need to actually read the test results regarding the skull to come up with your bizarre conclusion, rather than characterising open minded people who have not come to a hasty conclusion as starchild groupies. |
Michael
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 06:29 AM
What exactly is symmetrical about this skull?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starchild_skull_1.jpg
Have a nice day. |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 07:45 AM
The skull was examined by a craniofacial surgeon in Vancouver. Contrary to your belief, someone with as specialized a medical expertise does not benefit their reputation by examining something with the slightest possibility it is extraterrestrial. There are too many blind skeptics in the world for it to be anything but a risk to be involved with if you are reputable and respected in the scientific world. After all this is impossible right? So the guy must be crazy to say it is unlike any deformity he has ever seen. The craniofacial opinion is important because deformity is never symettrical. It also gives clues to this being, at the very least, a deformity with purpose in design. Where the vertibra attaches to the skull is off centered to account for the larger frontal lobe cranial capacity. The spine does not reallign and reattach itself in a hydrocephalic skull. Why is the spinal column attachment in an area that would be more efficient to carry this larger head? Have you been around someone with a hydrocephalic head? The majority of cases the child is unable to hold their head upright and have to remain prone in bed because the human skeleton is not designed for the extra weight. This artifact's spinal column DOES account for the imbalance.
As far as symmetry.... for starters the knitting of the bones in the skull determine the placement, pronouncement or lack of musculature on the human face. The knitting of the bone on the artifact is consistent on both sides (symetrical). The swelling of a hydrocephalic skull does not determine how the skull bones knit together. Where the knit occurs on the side determines the size of the jaw muscles. The knit on the skull is indicitive of someone with very small, almost non existant jaw muscles. This has nothing to do with hydrocephallic deformity whatsoever.
The link you sent of the picture of the skull, did you look at it by any chance? When was the last time you saw eye sockets with a plate of bone at the back of the eye???? That's where our sinuses are located and is mostly cartlidge which deteriorates in a normal human skull. In a normal skull it is hollow all the way back. Do you see any big black holes in this skull's eyes sockets???
The VERY small mouth (what is left of the upper portion) is intact enough to see this person had a tiny mouth. You don't need to see the teeth to tell it was a tiny oral cavity. The mouth doesn't shrink as the "hydrocephalic" brain swells. It is not small in proportion to the size of the head, it's small in comparison to a comparative skull of the same approximate age. Also... the mouth cavity is symetrical if you didn't notice.
Not to mention the shape of the eyes and the size of them. Are you serious??? The sockets are extremely shallow and VERY wide. What does that have to do with a person with a hydrocephalic brain? And they are the same on BOTH sides. Are you telling me you think the eyes are not symetrical? Or that the child had both a hydrocephalic brain AND an eye deformity which flattened and enlarged the eyes (on BOTH sides) like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon character and it was compounded by obviously symetrical "geological bone shearing"? I think that's really reaching. Why not just say the skull was pieced together with crazy glue in some undertaker's lab? I mean the chances of that would be much better.
I'm not an expert on the skull by any means but even 5 yrs ago when this thing first popped up online, there was enough material to scratch your head. You have to open your eyes otherwise commenting on it is meaningless and it only becomes a statement of opinion. The guy could very well be a quack but your observations don't make a lot of sense to me.
As with any of these mysteries there are groupies but there are also people that refuse to observe what is in front of their faces because it goes counter to their belief system. That is not a true skeptic. The autopilot nay sayers can be just as bad as the "groupies". |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 07:52 AM
Oh and by the way, what "facial bones" were "snapped off" other that the jaw? There are plenty of normal human skulls that have detached jaw bones that look nothing like this. |
Michael
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 12:51 PM
Well, at least we are agreed on one thing, you are certainly no expert.
You are putting information where there is none to be had. From a side view of the skull it is quite obvious that it is sheared from the nasal bridge to slightly anterior of the Foramen Magnum (Or at least where it would be). Occipital displacement is quite common in Hydrocephalic cases. In severe cases displacement can occur to such severity as to lower the optic nerve canal. Removal of sinuses is not to uncommon in these severe cases.
As for this "never a symmetrical mutation" statement; It is absolutely absurd. This is rhetoric that only Lloyd claims (along with the "never a deformed/defective gene in the wild"). Any Anthropologist or Evolutionary Biologist can point to many occasions of symmetrical mutations. I will list just a few:
Leopard syndrome
Chronic Progressive External Ophthalmoplegia (CPOE)
Norrie disease
Friedreich's ataxia
Kennedy disease
Down Syndrome
Progeria
and the list goes on.
Oddly enough, I have heard convincing arguments that the "Starchild" skull is a classic progeria case. If you circumvent the obvious shearing of the skull, and take what you see as a complete specimen lacking only a mandible then it would be an exact match for Progeria. Sadly though it is obvious that Lloyd will never complete Paternal DNA testing as it will only prove this to be a truly human skull. |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 06:26 PM
Yes we agree that I am not an expert nor should anyone assume you are by your use of medical terminology that has no bearing on the skull in question.
In the occipital bone, the foramen magnum is one of the naturally occurring holes in the BASE of the skull. You are saying that this "geological shearing" of the lower portion of the skull up to the extreme lower portion of the nose bridge has some bearing on the remaining portion of the skull?
Nor does the shearing theory account for:
1. the enlarged frontal lobe capacity.
2. As well as the amazingly shallow and large eye sockets.
3. As well as the PLATES OF BONE located at the backs of the eye sockets.
4. As well as the knitting of the skull itself which indicates little or no jaw muscle.
5. As well as the much lower density and pourous nature of the bone itself.
6. Or the fibrous filaments discovered in the bone which strengthen the bone.
7. Or the unnatural placement of where the spinal column attaches and coincidentally happens to balance this "deformity".
What does the obviously missing bone on the lower portion of the skull have to do with any of the characteristics of the skull that make it interesting in the first place? Where in your laundry list of diseases are these symptoms displayed? Could you provide any reference or are we to assume that your anthropological textbooks sitting next to you in your dorm are sufficient to close the case on this? Would the name of the experienced craniofacial surgeon who examined the skull be of any use to you in helping you to open your views? Perhaps you could impress him with your extensive anatomical vocabulary. |
Michsel
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 | 12:59 AM
"In the occipital bone, the foramen magnum is one of the naturally occurring holes in the BASE of the skull."
Indeed the Foramen Magnum is at the base. Simple comprehension of my analysis would show that when I mentioned the Foramen Magnum it was as a "Point B" in reference to the obvious shearing demarkation.
"You are saying that this "geological shearing" of the lower portion of the skull up to the extreme lower portion of the nose bridge has some bearing on the remaining portion of the skull?"
First off, the nasal bridge is the top part of the nasal canal. Indeed it does not have any bearing on the rest of the skull, which is why I addressed each part independently.
"Nor does the shearing theory account for:
1. the enlarged frontal lobe capacity."
Covered by my Hydrocephalic comparison.
"2. As well as the amazingly shallow and large eye sockets."
Covered by my Hydrocephalic comparison.
"3. As well as the PLATES OF BONE located at the backs of the eye sockets."
I already mentioned the lowering of the Optic Nerve Canal is not uncommon among severe Hydrocephalic cases.
"4. As well as the knitting of the skull itself which indicates little or no jaw muscle."
I want you to take a look at a hydrocephalic skull, seperate the skull from the Nasal Bridge to Anterior of the Foramen Magnum. Then tell me what you think.
"5. As well as the much lower density and pourous nature of the bone itself. "
All bone is pourous. A lower bone density could simply mean a calcium deficiency.
"6. Or the fibrous filaments discovered in the bone which strengthen the bone."
Only Lloyd and his cohorts have made this discovery. Predictably they did not care to share the "specimen".
"7. Or the unnatural placement of where the spinal column attaches and coincidentally happens to balance this "deformity"."
I don't know about you, but I do not see a spinal column, nor do I see how it "compensated" to "balance" the skull. Please attach an image of "Starchild" with the C1/Baso Junction circled.
"What does the obviously missing bone on the lower portion of the skull have to do with any of the characteristics of the skull that make it interesting in the first place?"
Well, several of your claims require that missing bone to be present in order to properly demonstrate what you claim.
"Where in your laundry list of diseases are these symptoms displayed?"
Simple comprehension would reveal that "laundry list" to be examples of symmetrical mutations. I in no way equated those malformities to this case, with the exception of my tangent on progeria.
"Could you provide any reference or are we to assume that your anthropological textbooks sitting next to you in your dorm are sufficient to close the case on this?"
Yes, my dorm here in Afghanistan is stacked with Anthropological textbooks. Visit a library and compare my statements to that of known academic knowledge.
"Would the name of the experienced craniofacial surgeon who examined the skull be of any use to you in helping you to open your views? Perhaps you could impress him with your extensive anatomical vocabulary."
I would love the list of all the craniofacial surgeons who have reviewed this specimen. Please provide me an extensive list. I will be surprised if it goes into the double digits, with Lloyd's record. |
orangedrone
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 | 08:37 AM
Pye does have a "day job". He isn't a scam artist.. He believes in this stuff done to his very core.
-O |
Paul
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 | 08:53 AM
Yeah but trying to convince close minded people with their misguided, undying faith in the belief that the "scientific method" and "peer review" is infallible is a wasted effort. They are convinced that people with a single artifact are capable of becoming rich travelling to UFO conventions and selling books. They have no idea that the effort really is something you do because you believe in it. To them it's inconceivable that someone would put time and effort into something unless it had a dollar return (in other words the concept of following your convictions or dreams is unfamiliar to them). |
Michael
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 | 12:46 PM
"Yeah but trying to convince close minded people with their misguided, undying faith in the belief that the "scientific method" and "peer review" is infallible is a wasted effort."
Where is the faith in empirical evidence cohoborated through the duplicate review and testing of said material through impartial individuals? My friend, the word faith is much more applicaple to the belief that a skull is extra-terrestrial in origin when the Mitochondrial DNA has shown to be human, and the Paternal Lineage is UNKNOWN. That is what makes the claim of the skull being extra-terrestrial a leap of faith.
"They are convinced that people with a single artifact are capable of becoming rich travelling to UFO conventions and selling books."
This has nothing to do with the debate (aka Non-sequitor). Whether he becomes wealthy or not has nothing to do with the despot Lloyd is experiencing in the realm of evidence for his claim.
" They have no idea that the effort really is something you do because you believe in it."
Indeed, we are agreed this is a belief. That does not change the sheer lack of evidence.
" To them it's inconceivable that someone would put time and effort into something unless it had a dollar return (in other words the concept of following your convictions or dreams is unfamiliar to them)."
Once again, a non-sequitor. Whether he makes money off this enterprise or not is of no consequence, although it does add against the probability of authenticity (occam's razor anyone?) |
Paul
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 | 04:44 PM
How is it a non-sequitor to this discussion when I am REstating the points that have been numberously and repeatedly used to argue against the skull and Pye? I agree whole heartedly that his selling of a book or displaying the artifact at conventions is a TOTAL non-sequitor yet it appears throughout this thread from it's inception. He's not making money on his venture and if he is, it's certainly a meager amount and hardly worth the ridicule he has to face.
When it comes down to it, the majority of the arguments are "attack the messenger" cheap shots or calling anyone that is remotely open to the possibility as a "Starchild groupie" to even entertain the idea that there MIGHT be something to it? Did you read the thread? The only person that remotely gave any explanation for their opinions resorted to evading the main evidence and focusing on what they could ultimately fall back on as their word against his.
And when you ask where the faith is involved in a method used to pass a black or white judgement on discoveries in the past, it seems to me that the peer review process has been used against free thinkers that didn't chose to "follow the rules" of the scientific community. The process is open to human error and ego and is comparable to the legal system in that in works some of the time, not all of the time. It's not wrong to believe that there are shades of grey in an issue but there don't appear to be too many people examining this case without passing judgement before examining the facts. And let's not forget what Bush senior did with the war against cold fusion using the "peer review process" to squash congressional funding for it. The point being that the processes are run by human beings with human egos and motivations and humans are not infallible. Responding to the weird arguments being made here are not a non-sequitor. The points being made against it however are.
It takes more than a group of impartial individuals to decide this. It takes a great deal of financial resources to run most of these DNA tests, which apparently and according to people here he is at fault for and an object of suspicion unless he becomes bankrupt in the process. And how impartial can a person be when their reputation is on the line for even considering the possibility of involvement with something that could cast dispersion on themselves. And as far as the "belief" that it IS extraterrestrial, it could very well NOT be. Is there faith involved in considering the possibility that it MIGHT be and that sufficient data has come about that makes the skull at least seem enigmatic? Faith implies belief. The majority of the comments expressing a strong belief have been negative here with desperate attempts to bring up long shots as proof that Pye is a charlatan (long shots such as "geological shearing" of the bottom half of the skull or hydrocephalic brain disorders that would cause the spinal cord to reallign itself and make the eyesockets twice as large and half as deep with plates of bone at the back).
For that matter I think it would seem more plausible (playing devil's advocate) that someone would spend so much of his time and energy perpetrating a hoax if it is intended as slight of hand to draw attention from the reality of extra-terrestrials. This would make an excellent "Roswell Autopsy" type of disinformation attempt to get the public to throw the baby out with the bathwater on the whole ET topic. |
Michael
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 02:33 AM
First, You seem to have no idea what a "non-sequitur" is. A non-sequitur is a statement or tangent that has nothing to do with the subject matter. We have been discussing the evidence, not Lloyd's personal involvement whether financially or personally.
Second, There has yet to be any evidence for this skull being "non-human" let alone, "Alien". Thus any claim made about it being extra-terrestrial is one of faith. As such, any claim made must be supported by evidence to be taken seriously. As of yet any attempt to acquire evidence to show ET descent has only yielded proof of human descent. I will admit that this skull is quite a strange sight, but my observation and explanation is cohoborated by modern medical evidence and observation. The best you have done as a reply is "nu-uh" or "But what about...".
Now let's get one thing straight, I personally would not be hurt one bit if the father turned out to be alien. To tell the truth, I would be excited to find evidence for intelligent life outside out own Earth or Solar System. The possibility of Alien life is very real and is only a matter of time before it is demonstrated. This cannot be done properly though without evidence, and with star-child, that has yet to come to fruition. The very fact that star-child can be easily compared to known human conditions is yet another tick against it's authenticity.
The Scientific community, as of now is, on an unprecedented search for ET. There is not reason for scientists to "hide" evidence of ET as it would only further scientific knowledge. The trouble many ET believers face though is evidence. This is why a large percentage of this group have a vehemency for the peer-review system. Peer-review works 100% of the time. It is responsible for all modern scientific advancements in every field. The computer you are using to surf the internet were all first tested by peer review. It is a simple system. You submit empirical evidence, it is scrutinized to the point where all hope seems lost of it being taken seriously, and then viola, the evidence pulls it through as fellow subject-matter experts are able to duplicate your results and predictions. Bam, there you have it. Peer-Review in a nutshell.
Many people feel though that this system is very close minded, and they are right. You will have to have empirical evidence that is beyond a shadow of a doubt before it can make it through "The Gauntlet". Sadly, all ET cases to date have fallen on their faces in Peer-Review as they have not had the key ingredient: "Empirical Evidence". Until this happens I will utilize healthy skepticism and keep my eyes to the skies. |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 03:47 AM
I know exactly what a "non-sequitur" is. It's when a pompous know-it-all comes along and starts pontificating (such as yourself) to try to impress on people that he knows what he is talking about when in fact he is digging through his thesaurus to weave an illusion about his authority on a subject. YOU may not have been discussing the subject of Pye's personal involvement but OTHERS have. This is a dialogue with multiple participants in the thread, not a dialogue with a self appointed authority on geological shearing and closed minded opinion. The comment before yours was in regard to his PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT FINACIALLY not your ridiculous theories which help you sleep at night secure in the fact you are an authority on subject matter you refuse to investigate honestly. Instead you resort to being pompous and insulting by stating I do not understand what a non-sequitor is because I can't follow your twisted line of reasoning (aka non-sequitors).
Secondly you put words into people's mouths trying to imply I claimed that the artifact was "alien" when in fact all I have said is that it is an enigma which does not conform to our understanding. Your understanding it conforms to. And that is fine. You stated your case which has included evidence that you have in fact read very little of the case study. You asked on one occassion to provide you with a list of craniofacial surgeons when in fact I said a single surgeon from Vancouver was involved yrs ago in examining it. I have no idea if there is a list but perhaps you do since you brought it up. If you really read anything about the case you could easily get that information yourself. If you are so interested in arguing the evidence buy his book and argue your case with him. Perhaps you will not bore him as easily as you have me. You present yourself as an authority on brain disorders yet when I have asked you repeatedly to present references and evidence that would in fact cause the spinal reallignment/attachment to the skull or bizarre disfigurement to the eye sockets, you chose instead to ignore that and barrel on with more of your diatribe. When the porous nature of the bone was brought up or the fibrous filaments to the bone structure it was clear that your final say on the word was that the evidence was faked. In which case it comes down to your word against his and in my eyes your efforts have been much less convincing or to the point.
Do I have faith in the skull being alien? Definitely not. Do I have faith in your theories? About as much as the easter bunny. I DO have "faith" in the appearance of evidence that is inexplicable by current standards that do not rely on theories such as geological shearing or hydrocephalic brain disorders. Your bringing up faith is just another attempt to derail the discussion based on semantics.
You've claimed your opinions are supported by moderm medical evidence and in the same breath say that no reputable authorities on the analysis of the skull have examined it. Which is it? I have in fact read no critiques of the skull made by the medical or scientific community but in fact have seen numerous reports stating that there are some incongruous properties that are not explicable by THEIR standards (not yours).
Provide reference to the points rather than state that they exist somewhere other than in your opinion. Early on you began your response to focusing on a part of the skull that had deteriorated which had little of no bearing on the properties that are in question. You haven't impressed yourself as an authority to anyone other than with your vocabulary. I have spent time around children with hydrocephalic brain disorders and while that certainly does not make me an authority on the subject (as you delighted in pointing out), I've never seen it cause the eyeball to expand to twice its size and half the depth. Common sense (a commodity in rare supply apparently) tells me the eyeball would burst under that kind of pressure. |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 04:38 AM
You also made reference to you personal opinion that there is no reason to hide evidence of the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Read the Brookings report from 1959 entitled "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs" which was contracted by NASA (an arm of the military industrial complex which has posed as an institution open to public scrutiny) that states an opinion COMPLETELY to the contrary. Actually read it - not just a summary of it. As a matter of fact it discussed something much more benign than an actual ET and refers only to remnants that may have been left behind.
But your opinion on whether or not evidence is in existance and covered up is off topic from the skull and is in fact a NON-SEQUITUR which is perhaps the reason you consider yourself an expert on the definition of the word since you apparently resort to them quite often. Your FAITH in the scientific and medical establishment is not as heart warming to every person as it is to you in maintaining your accepted paradigm of what is and is not possible. Instead you recount the details of what peer review entails rather than discuss the inherant flaws in having one authoritive body of opinion of pompous arrogant human beings with EGOS who are unable to think outside the box and find comfort in the established belief systems rather than being able to think outside of it. The world was flat until it passed peer review at which point it became a sphere.
Actually your closing statement on "all ET cases" makes it quite evident that if something were ever presented to you face to face, even with others standing next to you who experienced and observed the same thing, you would simply chalk it up to mass hysteria or swamp gas because after all, it hasn't gone through peer review. And you actually believe there is no reason to hide evidence of ET's with people such as yourself who are fearful of facing the truth and cling to their acceptable belief systems? "Healthy skepticism" is not the same as being a nay-sayer who refuses to look at the evidence presented to them.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the skull not to argue the scientific method or to throw thinly veiled insults based on your attempts to over compensate for your desire to change this into a high school debate team. At the very least, reference a single photograph that shows your belief that the eyeball in a hydrocephalic adult or child could reach the same cartoon proportions that it has with the Pye skull. Or show us one photograph that illustrates how the spine would shift and reattach itself to compensate for the change in the center of balance in the skull.
Otherwise just call it a plaster of paris casting that was created as a hoax in his garage and leave it at that. |
Michael
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 04:46 AM
In regard to Paragraph 1:
So we are to dismiss known logic and it's functions simply because it suits you? Nice try. As for me, I have made excellent points that can be researched utilizing publically available medical journals. Do not forget that you have made just as many replies within this thread as I have, that would make us tied in "controlling the thread".
Paragraph 2:
I have only addressed Lloyd and any ET fellows within my statement. I do not understand how you could take it personally. Also, as far as I understand, ET descent for Star-child is tantamount to Lloyd's claim. I feel no need to spoon feed you information that you can readily find independently, and I expect you to do so if you want to claim a ligitimate stake in this discussion. As for your offer of having me "speak with the "cranio-facial surgeon" I accepted it and even went so far as to expect a list of individuals of similiar expertise who have analyzed the skull. Sadly though, it has only been examined by one individual which is unacceptable in the scienitific realm which requires corroboration through peer-review.
Paragraph 3:
I was not talking directly to you. I was stating the over-arching difference between faith and knowledge. And I do believe you were the one to bring up faith. Quote:
"undying faith in the belief that the "scientific method" and "peer review" is infallible is a wasted effort."
Paragraph 4:
My statements were from simple anaylsis of the skull utilizing 360 degree images provided on Lloyd's Star-Child website. I would love to actually physically examine the skull, but sadly that has not happened. As for the Cranio-Facial Surgeon who examined the skull, I never attacked his credibility. I merely attacked the weakness of a single expert anaylsis. Peer-review is a neccessary component in the acquisition and processing of new information and knowledge.
Paragraph 5:
Your experience around Hydrocephalic children cannot not be admitted as evidence for 3 reasons
1) Anecdotal Evidence
2) You are not qualified to take detailed measurements and scans of the cranial cavity.
3) Severity is case by case
I do not care about impressing anyone as an authority, you somehow care about what I am saying though (and quite passionately I might add). I came to this site as a part of my research conclusive research in the Starchild Case (General Public Response). I provided my information, sticking to accepted knowledge. Anyone who has an unbiased view on this matter would see my true intentions were to demonstrate an Earthly explanation of origin, which I feel I have completed. This has now turned into a very heated discussion (on your part) which is odd since you also state you do not claim a belief in Starchild's purported ET descent.
With that I will close my statement, without further response on this topic, as my goal has already been accomplished. I will not read any further replies from you as they have yet to provide any addition to a proper discussion on the matter.
Thank you for your time. |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 05:03 AM
The reason I am passionate about an UNKNOWN is when someone claims to research a topic and provides no evidence of SPECIFIC points brought up repeatedly (and ignored) it is obvious it is more important to him to maintain his FAITH in what he deems to be acceptable. I would bet my life that your supposed "research" did not involve reading the book.
Detailed scans of the cranial cavity have nothing to do with eye sockets that look like they belong on a cartoon bug.
"Sadly" the "information provided" to you as a "public response" has been information on your character more than it has been information about the skull.
I hand "control" of this thread to you as the foremost authority on all matters ET. You have helped me change my beliefs. I no longer believe there is any possiblity whatsoever the skull is an ET. I believe that this is in fact an ancestor of yours prior to your family lineage's devolution. |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 05:35 AM
A list of specialists who have examined the skull and associated X-rays and CAT scans. This is information readily available at the site which some in this thread have claimed to have read yet insist on having the list presented to them on a silver platter (claiming that they have done extensive research into the skull).
The skull remained in the possession of Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S for the better part of a year during which many tests and examinations were conducted on it.
Specialists who examined the skull were:
Dr. Fred Smith, Head of Pediatrics, Children |
lol
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 | 04:10 PM
it's fully human and anyone intelligent would have figured that out!i just happen's to be a deformed child with hydrocephalus! Lloyd pye is joke and need's stop carrying around the poor child's skill! Really he make's himself look like an @**! |
lol
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 | 04:13 PM
it's fully human and anyone intelligent would have figured that out!i just happen's to be a deformed child with hydrocephalus! Lloyd pye is joke and need's stop carrying around the poor child's skull! Really he make's himself look like an @**! |
cyberdaemon
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 | 11:37 AM
As about cost of sequencing DNA (they try to fully sequence DNA , not just test it) i found this from wikipedia :
In October 2006, the X Prize Foundation established the Archon X Prize, intending to award $10 million to "the first Team that can build a device and use it to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less, with an accuracy of no more than one error in every 100,000 bases sequenced, with sequences accurately covering at least 98% of the genome, and at a recurring cost of no more than $10,000 (US) per genome. |
Bo
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 | 10:20 PM
ok... I don't know what this skull belonged to, but definitely not a hydrocephalic child. Those of you who still think that it's the skull of a child with hydrocephaly, why don't you go and actually READ the arguments against it? From what I've read on your arguments, "Michael" from Asmar, Afghanistan seems set on the idea that this skull's abnormal structure is caused by hydrocephaly, but he keeps avoiding answering the questions presented to him by "Paul", such as how the skull maintains its symmetry, why the bone is twice as hard and twice as thin as normal skull, and most importantly, why are there bone plates behind the eye sockets?
And for those of you who don't understand the whole DNA thing, have you any idea how hard it is to extract nuclear DNA from 900 year old bone? Mitochondrial DNA comes solely from the mother. Nuclear DNA comes both from the mother and the father. The mitochondrial DNA of the Starchild skull came from a human female, which explains why there was a human female skeleton next to the starchild one.
The starchild skeleton and the human female skeleton were originally found by a native, who only took the skulls from both skeletons. Pye DID NOT find the skeletons, the native who orginally found them gave the skulls to Ray and Melanie Young, who gave permission for Pye to conduct research and experiments on it.
I'm no expert on any of this stuff. I'm only a senior in High School. You can learn a lot about things if you just read for a bit. 😊 |
Michael
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 | 10:41 PM
"I'm no expert on any of this stuff."
Indeed, you have certainly shown you are by no means an expert on the following:
Reading Comprehension
Medical Disorders
DNA
Hydrocephaly
""Michael" from Asmar, Afghanistan seems set on the idea that this skull's abnormal structure is caused by hydrocephaly"
Perhaps because this skull fits the case of a Hydrocephalic skull? Don't trust me, look at the evidence.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_D6qrwjAiFJo/R9qFKChf2tI/AAAAAAAAFQw/uh2cCIAhsAE/1127.JPG
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/132311153_a8503ccb66.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hJGdz_CVgJ8/R_9lpZtl5kI/AAAAAAAAAnc/yU6N4qNvg5c/s400/Pharah+smiling.JPG
http://www.ispub.com/ispub/ijid/volume_4_number_1_23/multiple_brain_tuberculomas_and_role_of_open_brain_biopsy_a_case_report_and_review/brain-fig1.jpg
"but he keeps avoiding answering the questions presented to him by "Paul""
I addressed every one of Paul's responses with adequate corresponding medical data. You just chose not to accept it.
"Mitochondrial DNA comes solely from the mother. Nuclear DNA comes both from the mother and the father."
You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. It is not difficult to remove DNA from a 900 year old specimen, as it has not fossilized. I would imagine Pye is extremely hesitant to submit the skull through the process, as he has already received one strike, in a "2 strikes you're out" ball game. |
Vincent
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 | 10:27 PM
Well, this is all very interesting and I applaud those who have attempted to bring reason to the debate with a healthy scepticism. The most salient point for me is that we are lacking in crucial evidence which may at least settle the debate on basic origin. When that arrives would everyone be happy? Or will we just move to other non-sequiters to bolster indiviually held beliefs whilst disregarding what doesn't suit?.. |
Keira
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 | 07:24 PM
It's a perfect skull, neither cradleboarded nor hydrocephalic. Approximately twice as hard as a normal human skull, but much lighter. Microscopic reddish fibers also found in the bone (which is heretofore unheard of in human skull). I also understand that tests for the nuclear DNA were ineffective, but the mitochondrial DNA was identifiable as coming from a human mother. Lloyd Pye is anything but a con man; for many years he's been a serious researcher of hominids. Have known him for the past two decades, and I believe I can vouch for his honesty and dedication to uncovering the truth. |
Keira
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 | 08:30 PM
The Starchild Skull is a perfect skull, neither cradleboarded nor hydrocephalic (nothing that matches the typical human skull deformities). Approximately twice as hard as a normal human skull, but much lighter. Microscopic reddish fibers also found in the bone (which is previously unheard of in human skull). I also understand that tests for the nuclear DNA were ineffective, but the mitochondrial DNA was identifiable as coming from a human mother. Lloyd Pye is anything but a con man; for many years he's been a serious researcher of hominoids. His most recent book, The Starchild Skull [Bell Lap Books. ]http://www.belllapbooks.com], contains the following three appendices : Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull [Dr. Ted J. Robinson, MD, LMCC, FRCS]. Report on DNA Analysis of Skeletal Remains from Two Skulls [Dr. Jason Eshleman, PhD, Trace Genetics, Inc, Richmond, CA]. and Summary of Inorganic Chemistry Analysis of Starchild Bone [Professor Ken Pye {My Note: no relation to Lloyd}, Director, Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd., Crowthorne, England]. In the first Appendix, Dr. Robinson writes: "...This skull's morphology is so highly unusual as to be unique in my forty years of experience as a medical doctor specializing in plastic and reconstructive surgery of the human cranium. Because of its uniqueness, I undertook an extensive review of literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example. In short, is seems to be not only unique in my personal experience, but also unique through the history of worldwide studies of craniofacial abnormalities. This is significant. Specialists who examined the skull, X-rays, and CAT scans were: Dr. David Hodges, Radiologist, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, BC. Dr. John Bachynsky, Radiologist, New Westminster, BC. Dr. Ken Poskitt, Pediatric Neuroradiologist, Vancouver Children's Hospital. Dr. Ian Jackson, (formerly of Mayo Clinic), Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Michigan. Dr. John McNicoll, Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Seattle. Dr. Mike Kaburda, Oral Surgeon, New Westminster, BC. Dr. Tony Townsend, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver. Dr. Hugh Parsons, Ophthamologist, Vancouver. Dr. David Sweet, Forensic Odontologist, Vancouver...Dr. Bachynsky saw no evidence of erosion of the skull's inner table. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. Ther was consensus agreement to both of the observations by other experts conversant with these features..." |
J Wallace
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 | 08:12 AM
Has there been any further developments. I am a geneticist and would love to get my hands on that skull |
s.c.
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 | 08:09 PM
Has anyone given thought to progeria (rare) or a hydrocephalic disorder (much more common)? |
Paul
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 | 09:41 PM
Has anyone given thought to the idea of "progeria (rare) or a hydro cephalic disorder (much more common)?"??????????????????????????
Are you for real? Has anyone given thought to the idea of reading the entire post before beating a dead horse? |
BOOM BOOM
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 | 04:55 PM
im not convinced that this skull is the real thing, but the density of the skull puzzled me. as did the tiny fibers they say were woven into the skull making it half as thick but twice as rigid as a normal human skull. whats that about? |
Doc1958
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 | 12:29 AM
My instincts tell me this may be legit.Scientists still have problems admiting there is global warming when it slaps them in the face so how can we get some people to admit something like this?It is obviously not a child due to latest research and discovery of impacted teeth.Roots (large)have been detected in the starchild's skull(thousand of years old??)If Pye is hoaxing us he is very good or very bad depending on his true motives.He seems very sincere.Hope one day we will find the truth out....Doc |
Anthony
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 | 09:59 PM
"Roots (large)have been detected in the starchild's skull(thousand of years old??)"
I thought carbon dating suggested it was about 900 years old.
What I find most interesting about the starchild's skull is that the nuclear DNA was inconclusive, along with the reddish fibers found.
I'm no scientist so could someone explain to me what exactly does it mean when nuclear DNA can not be found? Does every human skull contain both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA?
Also, a scientific test was recently performed to find the volume of the brain of the starchild's skull. Basically, bird seed was poured into a normal human skull, poured out and measured to about 200 ml (could be wrong on measurement), however, after doing the same expeirment to the starchild skull, the brain is 15% larger than a normal human brain, which is also interesting. |
Matthew
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 | 11:16 AM
I'm surprised that nobody had done this yet...or maybe they have, but I missed it. Do a search for Trace Genetics, the company that did the genetic work. It doesn't exist. There isn't one article with their name, they never sold stock, etc. No information can be found.
Do a search for all the, "Experts that examined the skull." I can't find any that even exist or existed in the past, but I've only search for 3 so far. Doctors information is normally available on hospital websites, right? Or, at least somewhere on the internet.
Hopefully, Mr. Loyd Pye, the "Abnormal Information Specialist" (hahaha!!!) get's hit by a bus. |
Matthew
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 | 06:23 AM
Lloyd seem's like a really nice guy, based on these e-mails, doesn't he? Real legit, too. He even sent his ankle-biter dog Karen after me as PROOF it's an alien! I guess that's all we need. It must be legitimate.
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
So...ummm...Trace Genetics doesn't seem to exist...and the only
association those "professionals" have is with your bullshit skull, no
other medical contributions....that strikes me as odd. Doesn't it
strike you as odd? Most doctors have a website, facebook, their name
on a list of graduating students....something....anything!
So if you're taking peoples money for, "reasearch," but having
research done by companies that don't exist and by fake doctors and
the like, who's the ass?
Lloyd Pye <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
Asshole:
They've moved on in life. One got cancer but has recovered, the other went
to work elsewhere. He's been interviewed on three TV shows now. Please grow
the fuck up!
From: Matthew Thrasher [mailto:[email protected]]
Karen Lyster <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
Cc: Lloyd Pye <[email protected]>
Matthew,......... Matthew,.......... Matthew. Oh dear how many times have I seen emails from extraordinary dumb people like you...... you really need to change your email address to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) as that is MUCH more fitting for the type of "intelligent" emails you send out.
Let me guess, you're either one of the following:
1. A frothing at the mouth Born Again Christian who never does any research, but just slams others for theirs.
2. A product of incest with cross eyes, crossed teeth, and your left brain thinks it's a genius while your right brain argues that it's the genius.
3. Just a plain fuckwit who hasn't read any proper research on the subject as IF you had, you'd never had written what you did in the first place.
4. You are indeed GOD and knows everything, but are still trying to cut your apron strings from your real father Satan which explains the need to call innocent "skulls" "scum". Since when has ANY skull being scum - I mean "hey DUMB FUCK, it's dead!
5. You're just mentally challenged and haven't even got a clue that the world is round and not flat.
I pick "most of the above" - must be terrible to be as mentally challenged as you are. I'm so sorry you don't know that 1 + 1 = 2. But hey LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE, YOU'LL COME BACK SMARTER IN YOUR NEXT LIFE!! SOMETHING LIKE A WALNUT.
Now isn't that something to look forward too!!! So don't worry Matthew, you have such good things to look forward to in your next time around. But for now, just so you keep safe, I'd go lock yourself in the toilet because guess what... THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF "SCUM" SKULLS deep down underneath your feet.
STOP WALKING ON DEAD PEOPLE!
Ok you mental midget.... fuck off and leave Lloyd alone, if you want to fight I suggest you go play in traffic - you know.. the lanes with the really big trucks in them.
ALL MY LOVE FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER, you poor mentally challenged thing you.
Karen
XOXOXOXOXO |
Matthew
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 | 06:24 AM
From: "Lloyd Pye" <[email protected]>
To: "'Matthew Thrasher'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: Hi
[Quoted text hidden]
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
But even companies that use to exist have information available on
them. Saturn pulls up tons of info, so does Bear Sterns, Edsel. Trace
Genetics has nothing.
You're deceiving people. Why are you ripping people off Lloyd?
Lloyd Pye <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
You're a moronic asshole with no real idea of what you're talking about.
From: Matthew Thrasher [mailto:[email protected]]
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
What don't I have an idea about? I'm just going off everything your
website says...using all you're evidence. I just don't get why none
of it adds up to 'Kinky Alien Baby.' None of it really adds to
anything. I'm just asking why...and as a "scientist" you should
appreciate that, right? We ask why a lot.
So again, why are you ripping people off, Lloyd?
Lloyd Pye <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
I'm not ripping anyone off, you moron. If you Google Trace Genetics they're
all over the place, including an official report on my website. Stop
bothering me with this grossly uninformed ignorance....
From: Matthew Thrasher [mailto:[email protected]]
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
[Quoted text hidden]
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:51 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
HOW DOES IT ADD UP TO ALIEN BABY LLOYD?!?!?! |
Matthew
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 | 06:31 AM
Lloyd Pye <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
Genetics, asshole, pure, simple genetics....look it up.
From: Matthew Thrasher [mailto:[email protected]]
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:56 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Oh I know about genetics, trust me. But saying that the mother was
human doesn't and the father was inconclusive doesn't mean anything.
All it means is that the mother was human. That's all. A lack of
evidence doesn't beget evidence. So...next?
Lloyd Pye <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
You obviously don't know shit about genetics AND you haven't read much of
anything regarding the Starchild. Quit bothering me until you do some
homework.
From: Matthew Thrasher [mailto:[email protected]]
Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:05 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I read your whole Starchild site. I still want to see this genetic
proof you have, Lloyd. Lloyd, the world needs to see all your proof
to legitimize your claims, and so that you can prove your not a hoax.
It's important. I've done plenty of homework, Lloyd, I promise. All
I'm asking for is some real proof, some real evidence, but you seem
hesitant to show it to me...why is that, Lloyd?
Karen Lyster <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:05 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
Good god Thrasher - I hope you don't reproduce. It's better to allow a blowfly raise a family in one of your nostrils than spreading your incredibly fucked up GENETICS around the globe.
You "obviously" have never read any of the scientific data regarding the Starchild otherwise you'd be something we call "INFORMED".
Please do us all a favour and donate your brain to science so they can find out what the fuck is wrong with you so this "mistake" doesn't occur again on this planet. My god your ignorance on the subject is EMBARRASSING!!! Did you shoot a nail gun into your brain or something.
Now repeat after me:
"Matthew has to do some RESEARCH before spouting off about something he knows nothing about."
And since you obviously have no comprehension what research is - here's the meaning of the word:
Research can be defined to be search for knowledge or any systematic investigation to establish facts. The primary purpose for applied research (as opposed to basic research) is discovering, interpreting, and the development of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge on a wide variety of scientific matters of our world and the universe. Research can use the scientific method, but need not do so.
( Y )
To: "'Matthew Thrasher'" <[email protected]>
Lloyd Pye <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
You're lying. You haven't read the entire website because the proof of the
results of the DNA test in 2003 is there, easy to get to and read. But the
PROOF, with capitals, will not come until we secure the new 454 test that
will recover the entire Starchild genome. Then we can prove not only that
the father is alien, we can prove HOW FAR he and his offspring were from
humans. THAT is the key to what I'm doing. You'd know that if you had
actually read the website.
From: Matthew Thrasher [mailto:[email protected]]
Karen Lyster <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:55 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), Matthew Thrasher <[email protected]>
Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for trace genetics inc.
Right again Matthew - no results for Trace Genetics Huh??? All the above results from Google don't exist.
Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,800,000 for moron |
Doc1958
|
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 | 06:37 PM
Mr.Pye seems legit I meant "hundreds" of years. not thousands(Anthony from new york)If he is a hoax type guy he will be "outed,sooner or later....P.S.//Personal attacks are so 1980.....DANA from chicago |
Ash Doonan
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 | 10:46 PM
Hello there everyone,
I have looked through a few comments on this blog in my quest for the Starchild Project,
Yet I havn't found any evidence/proof against Lloyd on the matter,
I could only find comments that take the mick out of Lloyd himself!
What has the world come to,
Also I have read Mattew's latest comment which appears to me to be a email chat,
Mr. Mattew from Alaska has no idea in what he is searching for,
He speaks of 'real' proof well the 'real' proof is displayed through Mr. Pye's website,
What in the name of God are you looking for Matthew?,
What evidence are you looking for?,
You appear to be a very bored gent with nothing to do except harrass those who have a name! |
Michael
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 | 05:15 AM
Ash,
In scientific matters it does more good for the one making the new claim to provide evidence.
Mr. Pye has not provided evidence for his claim of alien ancestry. In fact, when scientific testing was accomplished on the skull to determine MtDNA lineage, it contradicted Lloyd's claim of Alien ancestry, at least on the maternal side.
This has not ended Lloyd's claim of alien ancestry, in that he now claims paternal alien ancestry rather than maternal. Sadly enough though, Lloyd has yet to provide test results demonstrating alien paternal DNA, or genetic material. Until this is provided (as it readily can be, with a mere submission of a sample of the skull withdrawn by the test lab, as there have been several labs so far offering free paternal DNA testing) we are left with healthy skepticism.
Judging by the lack of alien ancestry on the maternal side, and the stark similarity of the skull to human maladies, I would say Lloyd will have a hard time convincing any scientific mind this is a legitimate specimen without those paternal DNA results. |
Ash Doonan
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 | 12:57 AM
Micheal in Texas,
I personally think that Mr. Pye is doing a very good job,
He has proven that this is no hoax in which he has accomplished,
My view point, though I'm not sure if Lloyd would agree, is that the skull is a major breakthrough in the means of science whether its a alien hybrid or the founding of a brand new deformity in which science has not explored,
In the means of scientific testing, accordingly to my best of knowledge, Lloyd has found a human mother and a strange (almost alien) father,
Further tests are going to commence to prove and conclude that the father is of alien origin,
As for your quote, "and the stark similarity of the skull to human maladies"
I must disagree with because the evidence states that there is almost no similarity to that of a human,
Please read the website research again for me and actually study it because you seem to be entangled my friend! 😊 |
Michael
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 | 01:12 PM
He hasn't proven that it isn't a hoax at all. He is wasting time "collecting funds" for this DNA 454 test to see if the paternal DNA is alien, while he's sitting in the lap of luxury, driving around in a Mercedes Benz.
Please... He is a con artist, and it is obvious. The only thing he has right now is an oddly shaped skull, whose mother is human, and whose father is unknown. Until he can prove the father is alien (which seems impossible), he has nothing, and has been stealing money from suckers like you who believe him. As it has been said, many DNA labs would be willing to do this research for free, but he is asking for money. Why? So he can afford a new car next year of course! |
Ash Doonan
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 | 05:50 PM
Micheal in Iraq,
Mr. Pye HAS, and I will not say again, HAS proven that this is no hoax!
You look at his website and try to look for critics on the internet against his work,
I promise you that all you will find Micheal is people like you who dismiss evidence/facts without no thought at all!
As for Mr. Pye driving around in a Mercedes,
Trust me, he isn't,
He is a good friend of mine and he tells of having no money at all because he is using it for funding,
Saying that he is having the life of luxuary and calling him a con-artist is a statement that makes your mind a wonder of the world!
As for myself well I have ACTUALLY looked at the evidence and found loads of proof that this skull is NOT a hoax and could possibly be a alien-hybrid,
Evidence like the structure of the skull, the ruling out of deformities, strange fibres in the skull, its apparent endurance and light weight and so on and so on, is backed by scientists and experts,
And now I beg of you, like Micheal in Texas, to actually EXAMINE and PROPERLY look at the evidence,
Till then we can have a real discussion.
I will print the link considering it is too much for you to do to find it on the internet-
http://www.starchildproject.com/ |
This is Stupid
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 | 01:42 AM
To the people who believe this:
The skull is obviously not a human alien hybrid! Damn, you're all dumb! It's a human-cat hybrid! Just look at the skull! Looks like a half-cat half-human to me! And because only half the DNA is human, the other half HAS to be cat! That's Proof!
See, you stupid ass', it's a human-cat hybrid.
You all like re-posting the link to that stupid site, so I'll do one to
http://www.i'm a dumb fuck .com |
Pheven
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 | 01:45 AM
I suggest that you all look up the definition of Pseudoscience, then revisit the starchild site. Try thinking critically. |
|
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 > |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
