Um . . . how much hair was in this hair sample, anyway? How many tags? Because I have to say, the DNA can, so far as I understand, only be extracted once. And if the person whose hair it is can donate more samples, why hair? Why not blood or a cheek swab? All I'm saying is, maybe it wasn't possible to reproduce the test, simply because there wasn't enough sample material.

That's all assuming that there's something unusual. "Does not occur in any group" doesn't mean "cannot occur in any individual," after all.

Bart, what would convince you that you're wrong? That is a direct question, and I require a direct, simply-worded answer.

A serious study that brings more science to focus would convince me. Seen any natural blonde orientals lately?

An argument founded on opinion without any kind of study is not very convincing.

Define "oriental". There are plenty of blonde people in Asia. And then there are the Papuans and the Australian aborigines...

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

The finding was that the hair did not come from Earth. Do you agree that this finding was properly supported? Yes or no.

That was not the finding. The finding was that it could not be matched to any known ethnic group. As in natural blonde orientals. Actually it was established that the maternal genes were of common human ancester.

Define "oriental". There are plenty of blonde people in Asia. And then there are the Papuans and the Australian aborigines...

As in Japanese or Chinese from my understanding of how they defined it. Perhaps it is proof of human criminal abduction activity. Forensics is science as well, and abduction is a crime.

Oh, my! This happened in Australia?! What's surprising about blonde hair in Australia?

O.K., I took a look at the report. I must warn you that the way they talk about genetics in it sounds very fishy. "Mongoloid racial types"? This kind of language hasn't been used by serious anthropologists for over half a century! The following line of reasoning is very suspicious:

Nevermind that we have no idea where the hair came from. Why are they assuming that those DNA markers they found have any connection with hair colour? Our genes do not move in lockstep. Most of them are inherited independently from each other.

My verdict: dubious genetic analysis.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Just to refresh your memory, Bart...

Are you confused as to the meaning of "anywhere in the world"?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I stopped asking you much of anything a while back.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

That was not the finding. The finding was that it could not be matched to any known ethnic group.

In this post Alien Abduction you specifically tied it to the alien hypothesis for the abduction phenomenon.

Do you agree that this finding of off-worldly origin is properly supported? Yes or no. Third request.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

First off, the word "oriental" isn't used to define an ethnic group anymore, either. Second, how do you know it's naturally blonde? Third, how do you know the DNA analysis was handled correctly?

That's funny, coming from you; you ignored all my other questions, which were quite reasonable methods of analyzing the "refusal" of science to perform subsequent analysis. Have you considered them?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Do you agree that this finding of off-worldly origin is properly supported? Yes or no. Third request

Agreed. It is claimed as part of the supposed abduction phenomena but that is not in evidence. There is also the distinct possibility of hoax. Others have made the argument the blond nordics are part of this group. Also have heard the argument that this is evidence of genetic experiments. All are unfounded speculation as first you would have to prove that these groups even exist.

That is why I advocate a scientific study. Lots of speculation about the abduction phenomena, but little study.

My verdict: dubious genetic analysis.

Agreed. Many dubious claims. Study needed.

Agreed.

Then you concede it has no bearing whatsoever on the abduction phenomenon?

That is why I advocate a scientific study.

On the hair?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Agreed. Many dubious claims. Study needed.

Toward what end? To dispel the dubious claims?

I think you make the mistake of assuming that professional science should be interested in the same things that intrigue psuedoscience. That begs the question whether pseudoscience and science are or ought to be the same thing.

You may not beg the legitimacy of pseudoscience. Nor may you beg the legitimacy of your own personal research interests, whether you want to characterize them as pseudoscience or not.

As I've said repeatedly: you're simply trying to tell people what they should do in science, and calling them names if they don't agree that your way is best.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yep, my wife finds evidence of me with two striking blondes and an alien abduction will probably be my best defence as well....

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

As I've said repeatedly: you're simply trying to tell people what they should do in science, and calling them names if they don't agree that your way is best.

Sorry that you misunderstand my motives. But there is no point in continuing. The horse is dead.

Sorry that you misunderstand my motives.

Poor, poor Bart. The problem is you won't be pinned down on anything. Answer questions truthfully, succinctly, consistently, and promptly and there would be less need to look at non-factual issues such as your motives.

Funny how everyone "misunderstands" your motives the same way.

But there is no point in continuing. The horse is dead.

The proper thing to say when you're aim is to suggest that skeptics and scientists are hard-headed.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Funny how everyone "misunderstands" your motives the same way.

Yes and I dont need the poor poor bart condenscending BS.

The phenomena is real. It is surrounded by mythos, BS, charletons, well meaning amatures, and a few very flawed studies that sought a reason to dismiss.

It grows larger in scope and real science refuses to get involved.

Why is advocating that better science needs to be applied wrong?
Thousands claim abduction and invasive medical procedures.
No FBI, scientific, or health investigations?

No surprise that CT theory abounds.
MUFON seems to be the best science around on this issue.

With all of this somehow it all comes down to me being motivated to attack science as what? A new religion perhaps? I have been waiting all my life for a chance to destroy all of science. Now I can establish the church of the blinding flash.

I am so pleased to have entertained you.

Yes and I dont need the poor poor bart condenscending BS.

Then stop trying to curry sympathy; support your claims instead. You're being asked to do nothing more than supply the rigor that "real science" must measure up to on a daily basis.

...and real science refuses to get involved.

You refuse to face the reasons why science cannot help you. You invent new reasons instead that make you feel good, including dismissing scientists as fearful hard-heads and handwaving toward some caricature of scientific method.

As I said: read something on "real science" and then come back.

No surprise that CT theory abounds.

Right: no end of people who try to redefine the world to match their fantasies and lash out against people who prefer reality.

I am so pleased to have entertained you.

Poor, poor Bart. Get over yourself. You've been asked repeatedly why you still post here, even though you say you don't like the culture here. Stay and deal with it, or leave and have done with it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think I'm sort of glad you two aren't in the same room now.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Simultaneously funny and clearly indicative that you don't really know what real science is about.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

MUFON? I guess you aren't talking about some sort of Asian, large nosed, mountain goat?

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

It grows larger in scope and real science refuses to get involved.

Would that be Real Science®; Real Science, Inc.; Real Science—The Movie; or Real Science for Nintendo Wii? You talk about "real science" like it's some sort of monolithic entity controlled by a secret cabal that keeps all scientists in well-behaved lockstep. You do realize that's not the way it really works, don't you?

Why is advocating that better science needs to be applied wrong?

You haven't made a well-reasoned case that science has not been appropriately applied so far.

Thousands claim abduction and invasive medical procedures.

Thousands claim psychic ability, homeopathic cures, and creative deductions on their taxes. As has been explained to you, the numbers create neither validity nor credibility.

MUFON seems to be the best science around on this issue.

Sorry to quote it again but it gets funnier every time I read it.

With all of this somehow it all comes down to me being motivated to attack science as what?

If asked my take on it, I'd say that you think that your objections are scientific, you think that you understand how science works, and you think that science is wrong for not doing it the way you think it ought to be done. Trouble is, what you think is not reflected in reality.

That's just my guess, though. I can't be certain, of course, largely because your arguments are all over the map. They're not consistent, they're not logical, they're not well-reasoned, and on occasion, they're not honest.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

A blonde and a brunette, IIRC. The story is vaguely amusing, to say the least.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I'd like to see the police reports in these cases, and compare them to the claims being made. I'm sure what is reported to enforcement does not sound very much the same as the claims. Or; the reports are filed with no involvement by the abductee for follow-up. Investigation is a two way street.

If a police report has been filed, and the police do not follow up with the urging of the victim, then you better believe the FBI will be involved and involved strongly. And; the media will pick this up, and it will become a national story.

Without the abductee utilizing the enforcement structure to persue criminal charges, there is no reason for enforcement to do anything.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Scope is not the only requirement for determining the extent of investigation a claim requires. It's certainly a factor, but the lack of any other physical or supporting evidence is a reasonable concern.

And you cannot claim that there are no investigations; but the intensity and scale of the investigations will match the quality of the evidence. There have been extensive psychological studies on abduction claimants, because that is where the sole "evidence" lies. Few doctors are willing to perform invasive procedures to search for something that all physical evidence suggests is not there. Most doctors prefer to retain their licenses; and cutting up a patient just because they say they think an alien put something in them (yet doesn't show up on investigatory scans) is, I'm sure, quite frowned upon.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

This point goes back to the "radishes" argument. You cannot claim aliens are stealing your radishes if they're all there in your garden and accounted for.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Sure; I can claim* that they are stealing them and have the technology to replace them with exact replicas that feel, taste, smell, nourish, grow, etc just like the real thing.

Now; is there any way to check if that is true or not...No.


* Intended as humorous nitpick...

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Proof is required in such cases and if there is no path to proof of the extraordinary than the mundane should be assumed and taken as truth. This goes against Hollywood, of course, but is how the rest of the planet functions.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Last night somebody broke into my apartment and replaced everything with exact duplicates. When I pointed it out to my roommate, he said, 'Do I know you?'
— Steven Wright

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

http://www.exoticworldart.com/ufodba...php?board=18.0

Here are over 500 reports. Tens of thousands of sightings, military, pilots, wtnisses of all kinds.

Lot of bllons and planes in these vids. And some very strange things as well.

I cannot believe our government. especialy military, is unaware.
Sorry guys, I just don't belive you. Don't want to talk to you any more either. Your credability is zip. Something very strange is going on in our skies. Don't know what it all about, but denial is just BS.

If this trend continues then nobody will believe the US military isint hiding the truth. CT is starting to look more viable the more I learn.

have a good day
regards.