The Lemon Fool

Apparently they have been carbon-dated to be 1000 years old, and yet are also fossilised, a process that takes at least tens of thousands of years, if not millions.

Scott.

odysseus2000 wrote:Some x ray analysis, real or fake? (About 3 minutes):

https://x.com/truthpole/status/17019201 ... DCpgdbFBxg

Where did the 45cm long hand come from? Are the aliens doll-size, or not?

Scott.

GrahamPlatt wrote:Meanwhile, on a planet far far away

Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611

"On Earth, DMS is only produced by life. The bulk of it in Earth's atmosphere is emitted from phytoplankton in marine environments," he said.

Not to be a wet blanket, since I'm fascinated by this and it's impossible that there are no other civilisations, but DMS is also made industrially. We used to use it in the labs, but I can't remember why.

You just need hydrogen sulphide, methanol and aluminium.

But I'm not sure where the methanol would come from.

So fingers crossed!

Steve

PS If they've been here for hundreds of years, they have no doubt discovered the stock markets, and with compound interest, they probably own the world anyway.

ursaminortaur wrote:Also in that report

Mr Maussan told attendees the specimens had been studied by scientists at the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM) who were able to draw DNA evidence using radiocarbon dating. After comparisons were made to other DNA samples, it was found that over 30% of the specimens’ DNA was “unknown”, he said.

"draw DNA evidence using radiocarbon dating" is complete nonsense, which makes one seriously doubt the quality of the source. It's like timing a 100m race with a Geiger counter, it's apples and oranges.

You have to be really precise in what you mean by X has y% of DNA in common with Z - are you talking total DNA, coding sequences or what. But while 30% may sound really impressively different to a layman, as a geneticist I hear "wow that's closely related". Depending on what measure you use, a chicken has only 60-75% of its DNA in common with humans, and most organisms are even less related.

So this is asking you to believe that aliens are more closely related to humans than >90% of life on earth - frogs, beetles, mushrooms, bananas.

And yet there is strong evidence from genetics is pretty strong that they are all part of a single tree of life - almost all of Earth's lifeforms use the same arbitrary genetic code for instance. So how does that work, aliens somehow split off from the human lineage at about the same time as chickens (so a few 100m years ago), then somehow get away from Earth and come back, having developed super-advanced space travel?

odysseus2000 wrote:The dna analysis could support the hypothesis that humans were created by aliens...Did aliens then create all life on earth in their own form? These kind of seeding hypothesis would make sense if human & alien dna were the same, but we would then say these are not aliens but humans.

Huh?

No, humans were not created by aliens.

There are various theories, typified by Fred Hoyle's panspermia, of a primitive form of life - think something like a bacterial spore - arriving on earth via comet dust or meterorites, and then all of life on Earth evolved from that starting point. But that's a long way from "aliens creating all life on earth in their own form", it certainly doesn't require the involvement of anything with consciousness.

swill453 wrote:Apparently they have been carbon-dated to be 1000 years old, and yet are also fossilised, a process that takes at least tens of thousands of years, if not millions.

"fossilised" is not a black and white thing, in fact there's a whole branch of palaeontology called taphonomy devoted to studying the different degrees of it. Think of something like Otzi the ice man, who was mummified in the Alps just a few thousand years ago. Somewhere like the Peruvian desert, mummification can happen really quite rapidly and if you throw in the possibility of translation errors, I wouldn't say the above was a particularly strong argument.

hallucigenia:

No, humans were not created by aliens.

There are various theories, typified by Fred Hoyle's panspermia, of a primitive form of life - think something like a bacterial spore - arriving on earth via comet dust or meterorites, and then all of life on Earth evolved from that starting point. But that's a long way from "aliens creating all life on earth in their own form", it certainly doesn't require the involvement of anything with consciousness

It is just another theory put about to explain the huge difference between humans & chimpanzees. The argument goes something like how can humans be so much more capable than chimps when humans are very similar in dna etc. So some have postulated that humans come from a genetically modified earlier monkey & that Neanderthals etc were other less successful experiments in genetic modification.

I have been told several times that this is totally impossible, but when I ask how can anyone know I usually get back it’s obvious, but that tells me nothing, but perhaps you can put forward a convincing argument.

Regards,

swill453 wrote:Apparently they have been carbon-dated to be 1000 years old, and yet are also fossilised, a process that takes at least tens of thousands of years, if not millions.

Scott.

Fossilization does take a long time, but mummification is quite a short process & one often finds mummified rodents, cats etc that died in dry places.

Regards,

hallucigenia

"draw DNA evidence using radiocarbon dating" is complete nonsense, which makes one seriously doubt the quality of the source. It's like timing a 100m race with a Geiger counter, it's apples and oranges.

Yes, but a lot of this may be translation errors. Anyone with scientific knowledge would not say this, but as translators have no scientific knowledge, such errors can occur.

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:

hallucigenia:

No, humans were not created by aliens.

There are various theories, typified by Fred Hoyle's panspermia, of a primitive form of life - think something like a bacterial spore - arriving on earth via comet dust or meterorites, and then all of life on Earth evolved from that starting point. But that's a long way from "aliens creating all life on earth in their own form", it certainly doesn't require the involvement of anything with consciousness

It is just another theory put about to explain the huge difference between humans & chimpanzees. The argument goes something like how can humans be so much more capable than chimps when humans are very similar in dna etc. So some have postulated that humans come from a genetically modified earlier monkey & that Neanderthals etc were other less successful experiments in genetic modification.

I have been told several times that this is totally impossible, but when I ask how can anyone know I usually get back it’s obvious, but that tells me nothing, but perhaps you can put forward a convincing argument.

Well the nature of science is that you can never "prove" things definitively - the fact that 100 apples fall from a tree makes it a high probability that the Newtonian model of gravity is correct and the earth is attracting the apples through gravity rather than say them being repelled by the sun - but as scientists you accept that your view of the probabilities may change in the light of new evidence. And in fact although Newton's model served us pretty well for centuries, more recent evidence suggests that things may be a bit more complicated than that and so the theory adapts to incorporate ideas on quantum gravity etc.

So it is with evolution - you're constantly looking for the high-probability explanations, even if you can't definitively rule out the theories that are the equivalent of apples being repelled by the sun. But Occam's Razor applies - in general a simple explanation is to be preferred over a complicated one invoking unknown God-like beings that are capable of doing genetic engineering.

But rather than have me reinvent the wheel, I strongly suggest you read a suitable book to get up to speed on the basics of how evolution works, as there's not much point in starting this discussion until you do. Something like Steve Jones' Almost Like a Whale is a good place to start.

Also you need to give chimps a bit more credit - they are capable of fairly sophisticated social interactions, tool use, have elements of self-awareness, language and so on. They're often compared to having roughly similar capabilities to humans at the age of 4 or 5, but in some aspects they are some way ahead of children of that age. I really recommend Jared Diamond's (The Rise And Fall Of) The Third Chimpanzee to get a better appreciation of what chimps are capable of - if you have the idea that they are somehow fundamentally different to humans then you'll make mistakes when considering their evolution.

Likewise their underlying biology is pretty similar, from how their genes work to the kinds of neurons involved - there's no "step-change" involved, it's not like we have dilithium crystals in our heads and chimps don't.

So if the underlying biology is similar, and the observed "intelligence" etc is on a spectrum with humans, then Occam says that any observed differences are down to the underlying biology varying on a similar kind of spectrum - things like the number of connections per neuron, or relatively small increases in the number of neurons. Remember that - whilst again caveating that genomic comparisons get complicated - 1.6% may seem a small difference between humans and chimps but on 3 billion "letters" of DNA that amounts to nearly 50 million differences.

And just one letter difference can make a huge difference to what you see, as some genes are "control" genes that affect the number and distribution of entire "packages" or "modules" of genes, so if you get a single letter mutation in the control genes you can get dramatic changes like flies with legs growing out of their heads, or XY "men" turning into anatomical women.

But do read the Jones and Diamond books - they're a little old now so there may be better recent equivalents, but those are two that I've read myself.

odysseus2000 wrote:

Hallucigenia wrote:"draw DNA evidence using radiocarbon dating" is complete nonsense, which makes one seriously doubt the quality of the source. It's like timing a 100m race with a Geiger counter, it's apples and oranges.

Yes, but a lot of this may be translation errors. Anyone with scientific knowledge would not say this, but as translators have no scientific knowledge, such errors can occur.

No they're not. I can see how "mummification" and "fossilisation" could get swapped in translation as they're sort of different stages of the same process, but DNA and carbon dating are fundamentally different things, the problem is far more likely to lie with the writer not understanding what's going on, which in turn casts doubt on the reliability of the entire article.

These guys make interesting arguments that the 'aliens' are an hodgepodge of small mammal bones with some bones from legs in the arms, some leg bones having no joint and different lengths and several finger bones point the wrong way.

If this is all true the fakers made so many silly errors that the researchers ought to have spotted them ultra quickly. Clearly such mistakes can happen as in the initial analysis of the stone age man found in the Alps not noticing the arrow head in his shoulder.

Very difficult to know what is going on here. This debunk claims so many obvious errors that it makes the Mexican folk who verified the original claims look totally incompetent.

https://x.com/t0mk0pca/status/1702076115559321828?s=20

My prediction was that some one would say they are fake, but this level of easily verified faking, if true, seems too much. The Mexican authorities now have to quickly issue a statement that accepts this analysis or refutes it.

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:
Very difficult to know what is going on here.

From the Telegraph readers comments -

These are exactly like the ones who, back in 1976, abducted my homework.

Do you see now Mr Day?

DO YOU SEE NOW??!!

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

odysseus2000 wrote:It is just another theory put about to explain the huge difference between humans & chimpanzees. The argument goes something like how can humans be so much more capable than chimps when humans are very similar in dna etc. So some have postulated that humans come from a genetically modified earlier monkey & that Neanderthals etc were other less successful experiments in genetic modification.

Yes, both humans and chimps come from an earlier ape (not monkey) and have been genetically modified by around 6-7 millions years of evolution since that last common ancestor with, indeed, some less successful branches along the way.

As well as Hallucigenia's excellent recommendation of Jared Diamond's The Rise And Fall Of The Third Chimpanzee: how our animal heritage affects the way we live I also recommend Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are, which covers much the same themes, although is in the end more optimistic than Diamond's book (there is no "fall"). I've read (and still got) both, and it is worth doing so.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadows-Forgotten-Ancestors-Sagan/dp/0345384725
https://studsterkel.wfmt.com/programs/carl-sagan-and-ann-druyan-discuss-their-book-shadows-forgotten-ancestors

As far as I can tell all the claims of fake with the wrong bones etc are from earlier investigations of different remains.

It could be that the most recent bodies are identical, but until that is established or refuted it is impossible to know what is going on.

All that I can find as to scientific analysis of the most recent bodies is opinions, the scientific reports that people talk about do not seem to be available on the internet.

If one can look at the X-rays it should be very easy to see if the claimed wrong bone directions in the hands are true, ditto the other bones apparently in the wrong places.

If someone has a link to the scientific analysis of the recent discovery, please post.

Regards,

Thank you Hallucigenia & mc2fool for the book references.

I will add them to my reading list, for after I have read the new Elon Musk biography by Walter Issacson which is beautifully crafted with an event by event timeline.

Regards,

Here is the link to the scientific analysis that raises many questions:

https://www.the-alien-project.com/en/mu ... a-results/


Whereas the bodies shown to the Mexican congress seemed to be intact full length, many of the images shown in this analysis are compacted, folded up. Are these the same samples or a subset of the finds.

It appears the congress was given data on samples recovered in 2017 in Peru, not some new discovery.

If I had been doing this I would have first focused on proving that the remains for each “alien” are from one body & making sure everything fits together, rather than is a mix from several bodies with things not fitting together. Maybe that has been done, but it’s not obvious here, at least to me.

Dunno, it’s all seemingly presented as deep & through analysis, but it is hugely lacking in the sort of details I expect. Is there clear & unambiguous evidence that none of this is a fake?

Fascinating & at the same time concerning as it’s near impossible to feel that a very detailed analysis has been done & if what was shown to the Mexican politicians is what was found.

Independent analysis is urgently needed.

Regards,

odysseus2000 wrote:Here is the link to the scientific analysis that raises many questions:

https://www.the-alien-project.com/en/mu ... a-results/


Whereas the bodies shown to the Mexican congress seemed to be intact full length, many of the images shown in this analysis are compacted, folded up. Are these the same samples or a subset of the finds.

It appears the congress was given data on samples recovered in 2017 in Peru, not some new discovery.

You mean the ones that have been specifically debunked, as being the remains of human children?

Scott.

This is an interesting video by folk who have studied this for over 5 years & who maintain a neutral opinion (circa 1hr 29 mins):

https://www.youtube.com/live/4Kofhyevxz ... jTFBICAway

As far as I can tell these latest samples are not the same as the tiny skeletons that were previously identified as human.

Regards,

swill453 wrote:

odysseus2000 wrote:Here is the link to the scientific analysis that raises many questions:

https://www.the-alien-project.com/en/mu ... a-results/


Whereas the bodies shown to the Mexican congress seemed to be intact full length, many of the images shown in this analysis are compacted, folded up. Are these the same samples or a subset of the finds.

It appears the congress was given data on samples recovered in 2017 in Peru, not some new discovery.

You mean the ones that have been specifically debunked, as being the remains of human children?

Scott.

I speak French, so I read the article about the analysis of the metal ring and and other parts of the body.

Copper, Gold and Silver? Is that the sort of metal an intelligent alien would use? The three most primitive and malleable metals? Maybe Pre-Columbian as they say, but alien?

Has any of this been peer reviewed and published in a respectable journal?

Surely, the first step would be to take a sample from the back of the head, the front, then the fingers, subject them to carbon dating and DNA analysis, thus showing that they are part of a whole.

Steve

odysseus2000 wrote:Dunno, it’s all seemingly presented as deep & through analysis, but it is hugely lacking in the sort of details I expect. Is there clear & unambiguous evidence that none of this is a fake?

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "a fake". They could, for example, be some ancient (human) ritualistic construction, far from intended to be a fake anything, but have some votive/spiritual/religious significance to the people of the time.

So, not a fake per se but a misinterpretation of an ancient artefact. You know, like von Daniken claiming that ancient petroglyphs showed beings wearing astronauts' helmets where most people (and all experts) see a headdress....