Coneheads

[shawomet]

Here's another of the many "pro-alien" interpretations:

http://thegreaterpicture.com/skulls.html

"If there's one piece of evidence for the fact that the prevailing historiography doesn't make any sense and that science knowingly looks the other way, it's the number of unexplainable skulls that have been found all over the world. Although independent institutes have determined that their DNA isn't human, the establishment continues to dredge up the most bizarre explanations for their strange form."

Where is there ANY incontrovertible proof that the DNA is not human? Look into that claim and see if it stands. I cannot imagine that claim would withstand the most casual scrutiny. And isn't that the point? Proof of such claims? I pointed out the Starchild fantasy and am told that's fine as far as it goes. But when is this claim of alien origin fine as far as it goes?? If the DNA is human, and one will find that that is the case, then why continue to insist they are not human? Why continue to posit a solution that does not work??

[Minimalist]

People who want to see aliens see them everywhere.

[uniface]

Any perceived sarcasm quite intentional.

And grossly assinine.

If those same people embraced the Pythagorean Theorum, would you be obligated to deny it because they did ?

Are ideas subject to guilt by association ? (Obviously, yes)

Do we still require that anything published carry the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur (Peer Reviewed publication & Journal of Record) before even provisionally being taken seriously ? (Obviously, we do).

So we still judge books by their covers (ideas by their advocates) ?

That is gross assininity, in my book (if no one else's).

[Minimalist]

If those same people embraced the Pythagorean Theorum, would you be obligated to deny it because they did ?

Only if they attributed it to aliens.

[circumspice]

Hear, Hear!!!

Any perceived sarcasm quite intentional.

And grossly assinine.

If those same people embraced the Pythagorean Theorum, would you be obligated to deny it because they did ?

Are ideas subject to guilt by association ? (Obviously, yes)

Do we still require that anything published carry the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur (Peer Reviewed publication & Journal of Record) before even provisionally being taken seriously ? (Obviously, we do).

So we still judge books by their covers (ideas by their advocates) ?

That is gross assininity, in my book (if no one else's).

1) Before vociferously expounding upon a particular topic (with the hope of being taken with any degree of credibility), one may wish to take the time to consult a dictionary in regards to both spelling and grammatical context.

2) Your analogy to geometry is obviously flawed, inconsequential, and essentially a red herring/straw-man argument. The more pertinent aspects would include bio-anthroplogy, archaeology, and geology, to name the most obvious.

3) That the above referenced "authors" are demonstrable frauds is a matter of record. Are you actually familiar with the qualifications/influences of Foerster, the documented criminal record and admissions of deliberate lies/fabrifications of "evidence" by von Daniken, the credentials and manipulations of Dona, and the bio-anthropological/genetic data in regards to Pye? Or you derive the bulk of your "knowledge" from You Tube?

4) The fact that the "research" generated by the above noted fringe "authors" has not been submitted to critical review/publication is rather obvious. The tragically flawed methodologies, unsubstantiated interpretations, and utilization of misrepresented cultural/temporal/technological data would hardly begin to pass professional evaluation.

Should you be so supportive of the positions presented by these various "authors", you may wish to ask yourself a question: If their research and data are capable of surviving qualified review, and of such "profound" impact, why have they not submitted their "research"? From a practical perspective, there are no significant barriers inhibiting such "authors" from publishing a white paper.

Or may it be more financially advantageous for such "authors" to benefit from the gullibility of those less inclined to actually research the aspects involved?

.

[Minimalist]

[uniface]

Here's a mirror for you two. Use it.

When we are researching phenomena of an unknown nature, we need to take precautions. But quite often critics and skeptics cross the boundaries of what precautions are reasonable or rational. L. David Leiter describes the pathological skeptic in his paper "The Pathology of Organized Skepticism," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125-128 (2002) :

... they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to "hard science", they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many "Skeptics" will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical.

I've been telling you two that you're every bit as much "True Believers" as the people you mock are ; the only difference (a trivial one) is in the specific dogma(s) you BELIEVE in.

If you can't grasp that from the quotation above, you're ineducable -- not worth further concern.

[uniface]

[T]here are skeptics who start with the assumption that these phenomena have no right to exist. Since such an assumption has no scientific basis, I will set that aside for the moment. Similarly, there is no scientific basis for assuming that there must be some "scientific explanation" - as we currently define and limit science. Such an assumption, if stated as a fact, has no logical basis.

[E.P. Grondine]

Or may it be more financially advantageous for such "authors" to benefit from the gullibility of those less inclined to actually research the aspects involved?

Why Hi there, Nacon,

And when exactly did it finally dawn on you that some of these folks are in it for the money?

What the hell do you have against money?
Don't you have to work for a living, provide something that other people are actually willing to pay for?

Have I ever mentioned to you that I was a reporter?
See my earlier post right here for the inside story.

Now that the ARM is before the Congress as NASA's central mission,
How the hell can I whip that story into even more money and fame?
Morrison and the Skeptical Inquirer are no help.

Oh I know. By finding someone who can still really write to work up the material.

[Minimalist]

If you can't grasp that from the quotation above, you're ineducable -- not worth further concern.

Translation: You give credence to any idea that some bozo writes down because they bother to write it down.

Sorry. No where near good enough.

[uniface]

Neither I nor anyone else cares 2 cents' worth what you believe.

What's at issue is your (non-)ability to distinguish between what you believe and what a rational examination MIGHT well show to be reality.

[circumspice]

The correct word is inability, not (non)ability... SMH....

[E.P. Grondine]

Greetings E.P.,

With all due respect, the above response would appear to be rather disjointed. Perhaps you can clarify. It would be my personal observation that you would not actively support the for-profit dissemination of fallacious information. Correct?

Hi Nacon -

I never support the for profit dissemination of fallacious information, particularly when I am writing about living people who can sue for slander.
That goes for corporations as well.

Notice Mr. Hatcher's techniques.
He tells us that "some think X", without telling us who.
That not only let's him use their work without giving them a plug,
it allows him to say that its their idea, and not his, and so he never has to defend it.
Ever.

All of the money with none of the work.

[Frank Harrist]

Maybe you should all stop sniping at each other and at the author of the piece and actually read the piece and look at the evidence presented and discuss that instead. For instance how do any of you explain the absence of the parietal seam in the rear of the skull or the extra large eye sockets. Did any of you watch the video? Understand that I am not supporting either side in this debate. I am merely trying to get the discussion back on track and away from the....whatever the hell it has become. If you have science to use on either side of this question I suggest you use that instead of merely attacking each other and other pseudo-scientists, as they have been referred to. Forget about the starchild skull and lets address the elongated skull that was the original topic. Explain the anomalies. I think Brien Foerster brings some valid arguments to the table. The volume of the the cranium being increased for one thing and the two things I mentioned before. What do you think of those anomalies? Everyone seems to have discounted these things without addressing them at all. They are plain to see in the video and deserve to be addressed. Anybody? What about the holes in the rear of the skull? What about the fact that these have been found in numerous locations? Address the science, not the credibility of the "scientists". They surely didn't manufacture these skulls. Can we discuss these topics as the original poster intended?

[shawomet]

This quick dismissal did have some interesting information in it...

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2 ... n-remains/

Including a link to purchase a medical model:

http://www.boneclones.com/bc-200.htm

The most recent entry by Foerster on his Facebook page is from April, 2013 and reads:

"DNA UPDATE!!! Or at least update about the RED hair from Paracas being tested by a lab in California, USA:

Got low-mag light microscope images yesterday; they are very fine, uniformly colored, red hairs. They appear similar in morphology to a blonde alien hybrid hair that was given to me by an abductee."

How long does it take to determine if the DNA is human or not? It's going on 3 years since he submitted the samples.
Foerster can be contacted here. This is his webpage. The genre is obvious; I have no problem with it per se because I do not believe we know the true history of mankind on this planet. So I'm not trying to belittle him by showing the type of tours he leads. Regardless of physical anomalies, we would have heard by now if the DNA was not human, at least I should think.

http://hiddenincatours.com/