|
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 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Paul
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 08:52 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
in Asmar, Afghanistan
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 | 01:51 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 | 07:26 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
in Asmar, Afghanistan
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 | 01:59 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
in San Antonio
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 | 09:37 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 | 09:53 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
in Asmar, Afghanistan
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 | 01:46 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 | 05:44 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
in Asmar, Afghanistan
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 03:33 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 | 04:47 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 | 05:38 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
in Asmar, Afghanistan
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 | 05:46 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 | 06:03 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 | 06:35 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 | 05:10 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 | 05:13 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
in estonia
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 | 01:37 PM
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 | 11:20 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
in Asmar, Afghanistan
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 | 11:41 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.
"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
in New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 | 11:27 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?.. |
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
