( 'thinking' is such a flexible verb)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
BREAKING: Alien Mummy Possibly Found in Nazca Peru
- Thread starter George-ananda
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What on earth makes you think that? Wishful thinking? Because I don't see any evidence of anything like that in the test results.
Did you watch the video I offered. It is 91% human DNA from the very well preserved DNA TESTING. For reference a chimpanzee is like 97% human like.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I find videos to be kind of useless. I prefer reading over tests and analyses carried out by qualified individuals.
"The presence of ~9% “unmatched” DNA should not be interpreted to represent anything unusual about the specimen itself. Reasons for the lack of match can include artefacts generated during library preparation, low quality reads from the instrument, or insufficient data to allow computational alignment against the human reference standard. Further, since this sample is likely to be at the least a few decade olds, and possibly older, DNA degradation resulting in apparently “false” mutations can occur. For instance, degradation of cytosine (C) via deamination to uracil (U) would result in false interpretation of a C residue as thymidine (T) and a resulting guanine (G) misread as adenine (A) on the opposite strand.
Reconstruction of the mitochondrial DNA sequence and analysis shows an allele frequency consistent with a B2 haplotype group found on the west coast of South America, supporting the claimed origination of the specimen from the Atacama Desert region of Chile. Sequence analysis definitively rules out the specimen as an example of a New World primate.
Preliminary results demonstrate no statistically relevant alterations of genes encoding proteins commonly associated with known genes for primordial dwarfism or other forms of dwarfism. Therefore, if there is a genetic basis for the symptoms observed in the specimen the casual mutation(s) are not apparent at this level of resolution and at this stage of the analysis. As the current list of human disorders is far from complete and many human disorders are polygenic, there might remain to be found a combination of mutations working in concert that lead to the observed defect(s)."
http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specimen_GPN-Summary.pdf
"DNA was prepared from a bone marrow specimen taken under controlled conditions with chain of custody specimen control. DNA sizing showed an average 200 base pairs, consistent with a “young” age of the specimen (likely less than 100 years leading to minimal degradation of DNA), and not “ancient” (where the DNA size could be as small as 35-50 base pairs). Whole genome analysis was undertaken with two successive genome runs for a total of ~30 fold over sequencing of the genome. Each run gave statistically identical variant calls, with the combined genomes matching well against the human reference genome (hg19_refGene). Phenotype-genotype analysis was undertaken on causal variants after standard population filtering. 54 potentially deleterious gene mutations were found, but after phenotype enrichment using the Human Phenotype Ontology system, 3 gene mutations of these 54 were found that are referenced in the known databases as correlated with short stature, abnormalities in bone ossification, and 10 ribs. Thus, the observed phenotype in the visual and radiographic analysis matches the genetic abnormalities found to a remarkable degree of accuracy. The conclusion can be suggested that the genetics of the specimen matches the observed morphology, and that explanations of misidentified diagnosis are likely incorrect. The genetic analysis undertaken does not allow us to conclude age at time of death."
DNA Analysis of the Atacama Specimen | Society for Scientific Exploration
I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that this thing is an alien or a hybrid or whatever.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The problem, man, is that what you've posted is pretty much all there is to this claim. I've asked a few basic questions because I've already read through the handful of "sources" regarding this specimen and I'm well aware that they can't be answered.
Like I originally said, that fact alone should pose some very serious problems to your desire to believe that this thing is legitimate.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Plain and simple.
Extraterrestrial hybrid mummies being found near Nazca's mythological petroglyphs are just a little too good to be true for you new agers, don't you think? I mean, with just the slightest amount of rational though applied, these claims can be found lacking in their substance. IF this thing was real, like your Atacama mummy as an example, it would completely change the landscape of human understanding, in all fields. IF it was true, it wouldn't mind being prodded by even the most skeptical outlets available, because the weight of the evidence in its favor would quickly outweigh the skepticism... But what you have is a main source known for peddling nonsense conspiracies and nothing else at all... Your main source can't even answer basic questions, and yet you've somehow drawn the "rational" conclusion that it's most likely an alien-human hybrid mummy with three toes and three fingers, just like the ancient Peruvians depicted in their rock carvings!!!
That's nuts, when you look at without the desire for it to be true.
As your links on this thread alone can attest, there are whole swaths of the internet filled with arguments and excuses made by people who deeply want to believe in something without any legitimate evidence. A human mummy that has been altered in a hokey way by someone who failed to research which parts of the body don't survive the mummification process, and weren't even careful in leaving their brush marks off of the face, which is arguably the most important part of the whole thing, is absolutely ridiculous.
The fact that this much conversation has occurred when not a single one of the apologists on this thread can answer the very basic questions of "Who, What, When, Where, and How" tells you everything you should need to know about the legitimacy of the find.
You're purposefully being misled by people who make a living misleading others. I find that to be revoling, personally. And it's the source of my vehemence.
Funny, but if you had looked it was primarily text with an imbedded video.
Actually, having looked into this a fair amount, I have seen all the above before.
And certainly no reason to vehemently attack the possibility either.
I am leaning to the belief that this is something unknown to science. Some reasons:
* The world's leading expert on dwarfism at Stanford said this is nothing encountered before; a six-inch human so proportioned and living to many years and apparently dying from physical trauma.
* The DNA is unusual by all expert analysis. People always ask for the DNA analysis but for why if any weirdness is deterioration? The DNA called in superb condition is now hopelessly deteriorated.
* Local tribes seriously speak of a race of 'small people' in the area.
* totally outside of these cases, the evidence for UFO's and aliens I find impressive. (making this less incredible)
* etc.
I actually agree with that quote but the only claim I am making is that this has serious evidence suggesting it is something unknown to science (and possibly alien).
Even putting this case aside, 'extraordinary evidence' is a vague term. Who determines when that threshold is reached? We each have to decide for ourselves.
I also detest people intentionally misleading people. But in a controversy who is the judge that this has occurred?
Could it be skeptics resistant to any foundation shaking find over-extending their case (misleading)? Is it proponents too eager for attention over-extending their case (misleading)?
Only we can judge for ourselves on a case by case basis.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sorry but I don't think videos are that great. Anyone can make a video and say whatever they like. I prefer studies.
Then I guess I have to wonder why you appear to be ignoring them.
I don't think I've vehemently attacked anything. I just see no reason to jump to the conclusion that this thing is an alien/human hybrid and I have no idea how you've concluded that it most likely is.
Ah, but that's a very different thing from concluding that it's most likely some alien/human hybrid, isn't it?
It's not like you're just being skeptical here and withholding your opinion pending further investigation. You've said that you think it's some sort of hybrid. I've said I don't see any reason, at this time, to come to that conclusion.
So what?
"The genetic analysis undertaken does not allow us to conclude age at time of death.”
http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specimen_GPN-Summary.pdf
This is addressed in the analysis as well.
So they must be talking about aliens? Why? Where are the reports directly from these local tribes that I can refer to? Or do these reports come from secondhand sources?
Local tribes also speak of leprechauns, chupacabras and banshees. Doesn’t mean those are real either. We hear stuff like this all the time: Some guy hears about a bunch of people somewhere out in some rural area (often in some third world country) claiming to have seen this or that thing that they can’t explain and attributing it to some other thing they can’t explain. I don’t find much merit in such vague, undocumented stories.
I find it about as impressive as the tales of moth men, ghosts and chupacabras. Which is to say, I’m not convinced[/QUOTE]
I can give my refutation on each point but that is going to get us on a merry-go-round with no end. Let's leave each other to our own opinions.
One thing though. Where have I come to a definite conclusion? Words such as 'most likely' and 'leaning to'
got lost quickly.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"We're probably talking hybrid human or genetic manipulation here."
--George-ananda, Post #110
"No, I'm thinking more a hybrid."
--George-ananda, Post #140
You've said that you think both of these specimens are probably hybrids. Why? I don't know.
My point was the lack of conclusive certainty in those statements and that a definate conclusion seemed later to get ascribed to me.