Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Starchild Project Claims to Have Alien Skull

Posted by Roblimo on from the we-need-a-science-humor-topic dept.

kid_wonder writes "Nothing better to do on a lazy fall weekened? Well, go take a look at the Alien-Human hybrid skull found over 70 years ago. Be sure to take a grain of salt along. Read their report Oh, by the way. In the next week or so DNA tests are coming back, enjoy the hype while you can!" Hey! What can I say? There's not much on TV tonight, so check it out. And if you're an extraterrestrial reading Slashdot for the first time, welcome aboard. ;-P

48 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Alien? Naaaaa by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

    Frankly considering the problem that the skull is real or a hoax I can come only to two conclusions:
    Real: It's a human. A 100% human being with a serious genetic defect. Even a fast look to it shows that it cannot be alien. If anyone has a small knowledge on paleontologic evolution then he may guess what I'm talking about.
    Hoax: Probably the skull does not even exist. The supposed morphology of the skull highly reminds a rather common image manipulation. So it's just another child's play.

    Frankly I don't know on how to choose either conclusions. In one way such skull deformation seems to happen. A similar skull seems to exist on Kunts Kamera (St. Peterburg, Russia).
    On the other way they look quite funny on their writings. At least I know they I already violated their copyright by reading their site :).

    Really I can't understand one thing. Why most people think that aliens should have BIG skulls and small faces? Frankly get a small walk at night. Look a little bit over that blackness over there. And think that, in this Universe, every hour several civilizations are born while others die. Hard to believe? Then count how many galaxies are in the Universe...

    Well about extraterrestrials reading slashdot for the first time... Well we have been here for quite a long time. In fact we have been ALWAYS here... So what's the problem?

  2. So hard to believe? by xtal · · Score: 2

    I wonder at times, why people are so quick to dismiss out of hand without the slightest degree of investigation into the validity of these people's claims.. what if Volta was so quick to listen to the people laughing at his experiments?

    True - lots of these UFO/alien things are likely hoaxes, misconceptions or outright lies. But they should be given at least the benefit of the scientific method, and if they can't be explained, they should be marked as such.

    Even the US government's "Blue Book" studies found some really interesting cases that they couldn't explain away, but these were outright ignored.

    Lots of people believe in life in the universe, but people have a hard time believing that it could come here. Hell, our own physisists have demonstrated it's only an engineering problem to "warp" through space - one hell of an engineering problem, but possible nothingless. What would that be to a civilization just 1000 more years advanced than us?

    I recommmend reading anything by Stanton T. Friedman, who presents excellent balenced analsyses of documents and paper trails produced by US government organizations - and comes up with some compelling possibilities.

    Give science a chance, eh.

    Kudos..

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:So hard to believe? by SEE · · Score: 2

      That's selling him short -- what he had was the courage to actually go out and trust that he was right -- on penalty of death.

      No, you don't get it. Columbus wasn't right and taking a risk, he was wrong and taking a risk. If America had not been there, Columbus would have starved to death before he reached Asia. Sure, he had courage -- but he was also one luck dumb bastard.

      The equivalent was not going to the moon. It would be believing the moon was only five hundred miles up and lucking into an asteroid to land on before you didn't have enough fuel to turn around and get home.

      You see, the circumference of the Earth was known to within 1% by Western Europeans of the fifteenth century, having been determined by the Greeks in classical times and having been transmitted to Western Europe by the Muslims when they invaded Spain.

      So, the educated knew that Columbus was on a fool's errand, since China could only be reached by traveling tens of thousands of miles of sea if you sailed west. With no know islands past the Azores, that journey would be both expensive to provision and have no speed advanatges over the new around-Africa route.

      Columbus, however, thought Japan was 3500 miles west of Spain and China was only 1500 miles past that. That would have been a fast route to Asia -- it was also idiocy. 5000 miles wast from Spain isn't China, it's Nebraska. You'd still have thousands of miles to go.

      Fortunately for Columbus, while he didn't reach Japan when he went 3500 miles west, there was a contiental landmass there for him to stumble into. Otherwise he would have starved to death at sea.

      And his crew weren't worried about falling off the edge of the world. What they were worried about was that they didn't have the provisions to go much further west and still return home. That was why they were on the brink of mutiny -- if they hadn't stumbled across America, the choice was to either turn around soon or die from starvation.

      Anyway, Vasco de Gamma was blown off course on a trip to the Horn of Africa in 1500 and accidentally landed in Brazil. Such errors were actually likely given the nature of the fast out-and-down route around Africa to India. So Columbus's courage and stupidity did change history, but America would have been discovered by accident within a century anyway.

    2. Re:So hard to believe? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3

      Sure, a lot of great minds have been laughed at, but out of all thepeople that have been laughed at, greatness must be .000000001%.

      The hunt for UFOs is the modern version of the hunt for the elixir of life or turning lead to gold.

      Obligatory: Newton was an alchemist. Not that thats why we remember him.

    3. Re:So hard to believe? by jgrr · · Score: 3

      What I find hard to believe is the concept of an alien/human hybrid.

      Even granting that aliens are visiting earth and abducting people, how are they impregnating anyone? I mean, assuming what we know about the origins of life on earth is fairly true, there's no reason to think that ETs would have DNA. And if they did, why would it be compatible with human DNA? Chimps, our nearest relative based on genetic and morphological analyses, could not produce a hybrid with humans, so why would aliens be able to?

      Other questions are, would an alien have a skeleton like a human's? While one could argue that the development of DNA as a genetic material could be widespread, it is harder to argue that the particular skeletal arrangement of modern vertebrates would have developed on a different planet, down to the details of how the skull sutures form. And if the aliens don't have that structure, why do their hybrids?

      There are a couple of parts to the scientific method. One is that one ought not to just reject things you disagree with, but should offer evidence. OTOH, that evidence can be from theory, and that leads you to another important part of science: Occam's razor. If it is necessary that we discard all that we know about life on earth to explain a skull, then people are going to expect the evidence supporting the hybrid origin of the skull to be very strong.

      So what I'm saying is that the evidence available suggests that this child had some congenital defect that produced a very strange skull morphology. Without an alien to give a paternity test to, it'll be pretty hard to get evidence that will make anyone willing to toss a lot of sound theory out.

      People might rightly point out that many true theories were dismissed like this, but I would remind you that a lot more wrong ones were rejected this way.

    4. Re:So hard to believe? by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2
      Sure, a lot of great minds have been laughed at, but out of all thepeople that have been laughed at, greatness must be .000000001%.

      "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" - Carl Sagan
      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    5. Re:So hard to believe? by NMerriam · · Score: 4

      The most obvious answer is that people dismiss it because the proponents jump to irrational and illogical conclusions based on only minimal or nonexistant evidence.

      reading through the page, what struck me most was how quickly they were assosciating anything about the skull with "eyewitness accounts" of what a "gray" looks like. Given only a verbal account of what a human head looks like, i have no doubt this skull would fit within acceptable parameters, as well.

      They brush off suggestions that it is simply malformed but entirely human because the doctors they've consulted disagree on the cause of deformity. So what? You can get mutually exclusive diagnosis for even the most common ailments for a patient that can actually talk to doctors and subject themselves to tests.
      Suggesting that multiple diagnosis from only a single sekeletal section necessarily invalidates them all is nothing short of self-delusional.

      Furthermore, there are many statements about why it couldn't be a given ailment that are simply wrong. Most extreme genetic disorders or other genetic ailmnents are fairly rare, and thus they have very little basis for saying that this skull doesn't fit them. Having done studies on Progeria, I personally thought the skull looked pretty much like most of the photos I've seen of progeric heads. For them to say it COULDN'T be progeria because it's "too symmetrical" is ridiculous and completely unbased on any scientific rationale.

      Finally, I couldn't do anything but laugh at their "forensic rendering". There are a lot of groundless assumptions being made in it, and i suggest that if they gave the skull to a qualified forensic artist without telling them "we think its an alien skull!" it would look pretty normal, although obviously a little top-heavy (a lot like someone with progeria).

      I especially liked the pointed ears, considering there was no ear cartilage or other physical structure to indicate what shape they should be other than normal human rounded...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    6. Re:So hard to believe? by copito · · Score: 2

      As it turns out Columbus was wrong. He just got lucky. Intellectuals had known that the world was round ever since the Greeks. They even had a good estimate of the circumference. Columbus thought the circumference was much smaller. It wasn't, he just was lucky that there was another continent in the middle.
      --

      --
      "L'IT c'est moi!"
    7. Re:So hard to believe? by Phat_Bastard · · Score: 3
      I totally agree that all these cases should be given the benefit of analysis using the "scientific method". what you don't realize however is that they already have.

      Any credible scientist in the world base their experimental findings on reproducability. No new knowledge is accepted by the scientific community unless it can be repeated by other, unrelated and unbiased scientists. For example, the supposed "discovery" of cold fusion could not be reproduced and so we don't have any Back to the Future-style power generators. Most people believe in life in the universe, but most of those same people acknowledge that: a) The distances between civilizations is so vast the chances of two ever meeting are very small, b) Many factors (from the over-quoted Drake Equation) need to come together for contact to take place (i.e. civilizations need to exist in the same time window, civilizations need to survive post-technological age "adolescence" and not destroy themselves, etc.) The probablilities involved are very slim, c) If life exists on many worlds and Earth isn't special in having the conditions necessary for life, Earth isn't special in attracting civilizations either. Why travel light-years to come to our planet with such a lowly, unevolved society such as our own?

      Just because Stanton Frieman is a nuclear physicist does not mean he represents the world's scientific community. Most of us would vehemently disagree with his claims. You insult scientific objectivity and the scientific community in general by believing his work.

      We can all hope for claims such as that of "Starchildren" to be true, but the fact remains they haven't been reproduced and the scientific community has not jumped on the "aliens bandwagon" since we don't see anything to be concerned about. Keep on dreaming, but please remain objective and critical of any such claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

      --
      Pete ------------ http://www.globalserve.net/~cpu -----------------
  3. Two words... by Industrial+Disease · · Score: 2

    Piltdown Man

    --
    Weblogging Considered Harmful:
  4. time frame? by Stonehand · · Score: 2

    They mention both DNA tests and carbon dating.

    Carbon dating, AFAIK, is remotely accurate only when you're talking at least on the order of thousands of years ago.

    DNA, on the other hand, is not necessarily intact for that period of time, unless it's protected from exposure... at least that's the impression I've got.

    So how old do they think it is?

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    1. Re:time frame? by rve · · Score: 2

      Where does this 'carbon dating is inaccurate' rumour come from? For dating relatively recent organic material it can sometimes be incredibly accurate, because by examining old wood samples (and other things you can date accurately to withing a few weeks) you know exactly what the levels of carbon-14 in a certain area were in a given year and season.

      DNA does not have to be intact to use it for identifying a species. To analyse the DNA you will chop it to tiny pieces anyway. It does have to be intact if you want to make a clone. This is a serious obstacle in the way of cloning a wooly mammoth or an egyptian pharao. You have plenty of DNA, but it's broken in tiny pieces.
      -----

    2. Re:time frame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2
      If carbon dating is accurate, creation science is invalid. Since creation science is valid, carbon dating is wildly innacurate and cannot be trusted.

      I know this is true because I read it on the Internet, and the Web site I read it on was made by a professor. I know he was a professor because it said so on the Web site, and everybody knows that professors are always right.

      Of course, it is always possible that the professor was half alien. I don't remember seeing any information about his DNA on the Web site.

      - Robin

  5. Deformed Human by PovRayMan · · Score: 3

    Some human bodies have had deformed bones caused by disease. Isn't it quite possible this THING could just be a deformed human skull? It could very well be a hoax as well.

    -PovRayMan

    --
    ----------
    Check out my blackbox styles
    1. Re:Deformed Human by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      "After all, it's hard to fake something like a skull. You'd need to have a cheap way of forming convincing bone tissue, find a way to age it, and break it in a way that looks natural..."

      ...or PhotoShop...

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    2. Re:Deformed Human by CrayDrygu · · Score: 2

      There's a possibility it could be a badly deformed human, sure. I doubt it, though. I'm more inclined to believe that it's either an alien or a hoax, though.

      Take a look at the pictures of the skull (and the forensic rending) on their site. The shape of this skull is amazingly like that of the "Gray" aliens everyone seems to be abducted by. There's two trains of thought you could follow here:

      One: The skull is a hoax. After all, if you're going to make up something like this, why not use the most popular form?

      Two: (and this is the one I'm more inclined to believe, based on the information I've seen) The skull is alien, or at least not human. After all, it's hard to fake something like a skull. You'd need to have a cheap way of forming convincing bone tissue, find a way to age it, and break it in a way that looks natural...

      If it's proven that this skull is little more than a malformed human, I won't be terribly surprised. The conincidental shape would be amazing, but I suppose anything is possible. I'm far more inclined to believe, however, that the skull is non-human in nature.

      --

      --
      "I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett

  6. Re:Moderators are idiots by sinator · · Score: 2

    My point exactly.

    --
    Three Step Plan:
    1. Take over the world.
    2. Get a lot of cookies.
    3. Eat the cookies.
  7. Re:You havent seen too many deformed skulls have y by CrayDrygu · · Score: 2

    I did say that I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be little more than a deformity, didn't I? I thought so.

    --

    --
    "I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett

  8. Re:DNA and alien biology by copito · · Score: 2

    An extra-terrestrial origin of life is not entirely implausible (although the way they espouse it is). If life evolved first on Mars or elsewhere, bacteria might have hitched a ride to Earth on a meteorite. If we ever find life on Mars this will be one of the more interesting questions to try to answer. Of course it could have happened the other way or not at all.

    That is not to say that intelligent manipulation of life on earth is impossible, just that we have no good evidence of it. It is somewhat interesting to imagine acts of God documented in the Bible in terms of alien manipulation into human affairs, particularily the Old Testament. Burning bush, Jacob's ladder etc. In some ways it is more appealing than a spiritual view, since it doesn't require the violation of any laws of physics. But it is obviously less spiritually satisfying, or terrifying, or unnecessary explanation, depending on tyour point of view.
    --

    --
    "L'IT c'est moi!"
  9. Re:DNA and alien biology by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    "what if DNA is some sort of universal structure that exists in all living things, including aliens?"

    And what if DNA is just something incidentally developed here on Earth. Nothing says that all life MUST use DNA. DNA just describes a bunch of enzymes. We could be just one of the myriad ways life could be constructed. Remember, "life" is little more than automated reproduction. Biological viruses only barely skirt the definition of life (not sure why). If, for example, we find some strange gaseous phenomenon out in space which develops and replicates itself, then it would not be invalid to call it "life". Let's not limit the way we think about life to the way biological creatures are constructed on earth.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  10. Re:DNA and alien biology by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    If you want to find explanations of biblical events by alien visitation I suggest you read Zecharia Sitchin's Earth Chronicles.

    Biologists are finding every day, more and more organisms living in environments we had no clue things could live in before. If we find just one speck, just one microbe, just one bacteria, anywhere that blows the whole thing open. If we find just one thing, it will be inevitable that extraterrestrial life either has evolved intelligence before, is intelligent now, or will be intelligent in the future. Io is a big sphere of ice, but observations show cracks which could possibly be formed by thawed underwater. If this is so, this would be a perfect candidate for life. Venus has a surface temperature over the boiling point of water. Life could still exist on it.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  11. StarChild....hmmmmm by Listen+Up · · Score: 2

    A teenage girl, sneaks out of the house, goes cave exploring all on her own, and finds a hybrid human/alien skull. Hmmmm. Now, how did she hide this little gem. I can't even go home once a year without my mother going "Are you still smoking young man, I should make you eat those cigarettes..." Now, imagine what my mom would say if she suspected me with a alien/human hybrid skull hidden under my bed...Hmmmm

  12. Re:I found 4 artifacts this week alone! by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    Well, that's a rather flammable post.

    In fact there is a wealth of documentation on governments' and military responses to strange phenomenon. It might not be aliens per say...but it's weird sh*t for sure. E.g. funky /traceable/ objects on radar which make precise >90 degree turns at over Mach 3...that is not usual...weather balloons also don't do that. With the history of government cover-ups, etc., it is not hard to believe that governments know more than they are telling the public (search for MAJIC, MAJESTIC, Blue Book). Something is uncanny...if it's not aliens, then it's something else equally weird.

    And remember, MS is not the only one who knows how to use FUD. Big brother has been doing it for decades ;)

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  13. There's probably a better explanation by paxx · · Score: 3
    It seems that any unexplainable occurrence these days is blamed on some form of mysterious alien beings. There has to be some better explanation to this than a fight between two alien races on our humble planet.

    It seems to me that these creatures, whatever they may be, are a bit too humanoid to come from some distant planet/star/galaxy/whatever. Another thing, why would an alien culture leave only two embassadors with only one culture on our planet, alone and without the ability to contact their own people? And why would another alien culture come all the way to our planet to kill the two other beings and then just leave?

    Any culture advanced enough to reach Earth would spend a bit more time on it, and we would most likely still be in contact with them. Even the most barbaric of cultures would spend a bit more time at least studying a sentient culture they came in contact with. Sentient beings like us and these two supposed alien cultures are too few and far between.

  14. SETA announces deciphering of alien message! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    "First post"...

  15. DNA and alien biology by Rob+Bos · · Score: 4

    ..I see no one so far has mentioned the impossibility - the inconceivability that DNA could possibly exist in a life form with a completely different development. DNA is an enourmously complex, enourmously intricate molecule that's developed over the course of billions of years to store the information that makes up an arbitrary lifeform in Earth biology -- the chances of something even remotely similar showing up in an alien biology are simply not conceivable. And don't even get me started on human-alien hybrids.

    1. Re:DNA and alien biology by ixjzv · · Score: 2

      what if DNA is some sort of universal structure that exists in all living things, including aliens? do you think aliens are carbon-based organisms? do you think aliens breath oxygen? these are the things that we don't know about yet. so you can't say that it's inconceivable for aliens to be similar to us.

    2. Re:DNA and alien biology by Imperator · · Score: 3

      I may not be an authoritative source on the matter, but from what I know about the evolution of life on Earth, it's very unlikely that alien species (even carbon-based, oxygen-respirating ones) have DNA at all like ours. Yes, it's quite possible that they have some sort of genetic material (that is, material carrying the information needed to recreate the organism (though even DNA on Earth (and not every organism on Earth has DNA (many only have RNA (setq e 2.718))))), but the idea that it can be analyzed in the same way as terrestrial DNA is ridiculous. (Of course there's a chance, but the probability is negligible.)

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  16. I'd love to give science a chance by Imperator · · Score: 3
    Unfortunately, these types of stories can't be investigated using the scientific method because they consist of unverifiable and unrepeatable data. Imagine if I told you that someone else's closed source software crashed and as proof produced a photograph of this program supposedly crashing your computer. How much science can I do? Perhaps I could analyze the photograph, but there's no way to ascertain how that error message appeared on your screen.

    I can't verify your claims with the amount of data you have; that's understandable, because you don't always have a way to produce proof and even if you did, you might not have it with you when this crash occurs. I can't reproduce your results; that's understandable, because this is not a regular event that you observed, and it's impossible to exactly replicate the circumstances under which it happened.

    So there's not much science to be done. You can't use the scientific method to prove that the crash happened, and I can't use the scientific method to prove that it didn't. So why waste time over it?

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  17. The pics by haggar · · Score: 4

    They are here





    --
    Sigged!
  18. Could be a malformation by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2
    I remember reading an article in scientific american where they talked about some weird disease which made the bones grow forever (at least, until death!), so that the skull would become several centimeters thick, the spine would solidify completely ... and actually one viking king suffered of it, and the legend says that he survived a hit by a huge two-handed sword on the head ... well upon examination of his skeleton, this is not a legend, there inded was a mark of the hit on his skull.

    The point? The cranium looked mostly like the picture on www.starchildproject.com, except for the fact that the eye balls' orbit looked different, but it makes sense to assume that the disease could evolve as shown on the website.

    What fascinates me the most about conspiracy theorist is the fact that there's ALWAYS simpler, less far fetched, less absurd ways to explain the 'weird' events, but they always choose the craziest explanation. An ET ... yeah right.

  19. Piaget's disease by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2

    That's the name of the anomaly I'm talking about. Also it could just be hydrocephaly, a common anomaly (poet Baudelaire suffered from it) where liquid accumulates inside the skull from early childood, causing the skull (soft at birth) to grow. It's now cured by ... drilling a hole!

  20. I found 4 artifacts this week alone! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3

    Why is it that only masters of flakiness like Lloyd Pye and Stan Friedman ever come across UFO artifacts and all sorts of proof fit for the Fox network??

    Probably because when most people find some interesting crap they don't cry "UFO" without thinking which suddenly propels them into the well-paying hype machine.

    Their theory is based on little more than modern UFO lore mixed in with a kind of Scientologist cosmology. I'm sure whatever results they get back with quickly be assimilated into a new UFO theory, cause, hey its real! Nothing like pseudo-science to keep you from disappointment.

    "Unfortunaty when the mothership does land, George Clinton and Bootsy Collins will be the only ones aboard."



    1. Re:I found 4 artifacts this week alone! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily true, astronomers are constantly working with observations of the heavens, yet where's the latest UFO sighting from them? How about government agencies examining crashes, digging through the earth, and defending their airspace? What about other branches of science working in the field?

      The difference is the UFO nut considers all these examples to be controlled by the MIB, which may or may not include Will Smith. Which is complete bullshit, any agency would kill for the PR to be the first one's talking or discovering aliens. Look at how excited NASA got with their Mars sample.

      After the UFO nut is done explaining to you why the Grays, Blues, Purples, and Rainbows are fighting and the massive conspiracy behind their secret war, they'll be the first to pull up a photo from some other flake and claiming this is the REAL stuff d00dz!

      I think the last person who will discover anything authentic about aliens will be the nuts. Their simply blinded by their zeal, the way a crazed Tennessee snake handling strychnine drinking fundie would make a lousy theologian. If anything it'll be an accidental discovery, most likely someone who doesn't have one strong positive or negative opinion about UFOs.

  21. the truth is out there by criticalrealist · · Score: 2
    What would radiocarbon dating say? How old is that skull they have?

    There are problems with this kind of inquiry: (1) if it's a deformity there's no way to convince believers of that; (2) if it's really an "alien" or "hybrid" (cough cough, ahem) then they aren't proceeding as scientists would (calling it the "Starchild Project" and otherwise stating their bias toward it being alien; (3) we have no way of finding other anthropological evidence to back up any claim of this kind; and (4) we have too many absolute believers and also too many absolute skeptics--we need some moderates who will look for whatever the truth might be. We have many more questions than answers here.

    But still. I admit that more than occasionally I get the feeling that we are just pawns in a larger game, or that we are lab monkeys in some massive lab. Doesn't anyone else think that, too?

    One extreme alternative is that there is another line of primates as represented by this skull who are kind of a more advanced human being. I found it disappointing that the web site only compares the skull to cro-magnons (modern humans), and not other primates.

    --
    I am not a lawyer.
  22. Extraterrestrials Reading /. by quonsar · · Score: 2
    And if you're an extraterrestrial reading Slashdot for the first time, welcome aboard. ;-P

    I've been reading /. for quite some time, since waaay before it was cool. To hear those stuffy Mxsptlars, you'd think they invented /. Galactic sheep dung is what they are, the lot of them...

    ======
    "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

    --

    Sacred cows make the best burgers.

  23. Sex with your eyeballs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4
    Greetings, Earth being! I am an energy-based life form. I have transformed myself into this message so that I might communicate with you. Right now, I am having sex with your eyeballs. I know you are enjoying it because you are smiling!


    Please moderate me to a +5 so that I may have sex with as many Slashdotters as possible.

  24. Re:You would be suprised ... by S_hane · · Score: 3

    Well, just a few updates on this particular experiment...

    ...first of all, on an "origin of life on earth" basis, the experiment was subsequently shown to have simulated the wrong starting conditions...and stimulating the RIGHT starting conditions didn't produce the molecules.

    Second of all, the concentration of the molecules was w..a..a..y too low to do anything useful or interesting - basically the breakdown rate was too high to increase the concentration to anything even marginally useful.

    However, neither of these facts have all that much to do with the topic at hand - and here's possibly some supporting evidence for what you're saying:

    In a recent SciAm article, scientists discussed the possibility of the building blocks for life on earth coming from (wait for it...) Comets! And other space "junk"! Many of the comments were in support of this sort of scenario.

    So there you go.

    However, when it comes to this "alien", my alarm bells start ringing A LOT! Here's why:

    * they're asking for money
    * they're making the basic (and in my opinion STUPID) assumption that aliens must look like humans (more on this further down)
    * they won't list anyone else who's actually seen the skull
    * there are no independent witnesses who have come forward and claimed that they've seen the skull
    * HOW on earth did a teenage girl get two skulls (which by all accounts must have been fairly fragile) out of Mexico without alerting the authorities...or her parents??????

    All right... the most important point, I think, is that these people have decided that aliens must look (basically) like humans. Why?

    Even on earth, bilateral symmetry was chosen essentially by accident - one of the huge explosions of life-forms (pre-Cambrian, I think, but could be wrong) had trilateral symmetry and other even wierder (to us) things popping up. It happened that, ON EARTH, bilateral symmetry was best, AT THAT POINT IN TIME. But what about Squids / Octopi / Starfish / other non bilaterally symmetric creatures? Or what about the majority of quadrapeds / other significantly different-looking creatures to us? I'll guarantee that if any of these creatures developed significant intelligence (I mean significant enough to develop space travel), they would NOT LOOK LIKE HUMANS!

    And that's just on earth. On one planet, the form of the first race of creatures to develop rudimentary space-travel was decided by chance alone from a very large number of possibilities.

    Why on EARTH (hehe) would aliens look similar? And I noted further down that this skull had a lot of the SAME bones (but deformed), the SAME foramens for blood vessels and nerves, the SAME muscular attachment points, etc etc etc - WHY WOULD ALIENS HAVE THE SAME BODILY STRUCTURE AS HUMANS WHEN THE TWO DEVELOPED COMPLETELY INDEPENDANTLY???????

    I mean, take even two moderately different earthly creatures like reptiles and mammals and look at the differences in skull make-up!!!!!!

    Well, that's my little piece of rant.

    -Shane Stephens

  25. I have a theory here... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

    Also, I'm going WAY out on a limb but hey... why not?

    I read a story not too long ago from the BBC newssite about how early bacteria were found to have existed even as far back as the molten stage of earth's history. Could life have formed so fast that it existed so early OR did it get seeded here from somewhere else? These bacteria live in the cooling lava fields close to the vent and at the mid-atlantic rift deep below the sea in environments close to what you'd expect in hell. You know how hardy bacteria can be when they're in a less than savory environment - right? They form cysts and get real hardy! Scientists have found bacteria deep in the earth's crust and so high in the atmosphere that it could nearly be called space... is there some kind of bacterial life that can exist in the void of space? I wouldn't be surprised.

    These are all interesting questions - questions that lead to other questions... If all life on earth is related... is it to much to suppose that life, if it exists elsewhere, is not modeled on the same DNA type structure with the same types of proteins etc... etc... etc...

    Also, is it too much to assume that if there are technological civilizations elsewhere that they may have the tech to do gene splicing or genetic design. Maybe they helped to modify our own genetic structure the way we breed animals? Maybe they are members of a race of humans that had a civilization prior to some distant ice-age and fled the earth...

    Who knows? But it sure gets you to thinkin'

    --
    Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  26. Either Alien or Deformed Human by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

    Take a look at a baby during the early stages of development and you will think yourself looking at an alien. Deformity is a likely candidate for this skull - if the skull is even real.

    You can speculate all day but the forensic evidence is what will decide it. The features are human enough for me to lean toward deformed human.

    I try to keep an open mind though...

    --
    Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  27. And Now.. the Truth. by Nebulo · · Score: 2

    They're on the completely wrong track.

    The "skull" represents the latest in safety helmets the inhabitants of Mars have designed to protect their fragile brains from the effects of Earth's music. They're planning an attack right now.

    It should be an interesting war. I think this time, instead of exposing them to music, we should try network television. This should handily blind them, as well as turn them into slobbering consumers. Once they're all out shopping, all we have to do is saturate-bomb all the Wal-Marts and ShopKos. Problem solved.


    nebulo
    "We are your friends... " (BOOM)

  28. Giving science a chance by copito · · Score: 2

    What I don't understand is how people challenging the scientific establishment are so quick to ignore major inconsistencies in their own work. This is particularily true in para-psychology. Admittedly, all scientific theories have flaws. Many of them even have known flaws. But if you are challenging a known flaw in an established theory, such as the inability of Newtonian gravitation to explain the retrograde motion of Mercury then the theory you espouse which corrects the error must have even fewer flaws, as does General Relativity.

    In short, the harder you probe a new theory the more solid it must be, otherwise it deserves laughter. This does not suggest that one shouldn't have an open mind, but it means that a new idea or discovery needs to be exposed in the harshest possible light, not contrived demonstrations.
    --

    --
    "L'IT c'est moi!"
  29. Alien conspiracy by copito · · Score: 2

    Not only is their an alien readingh /. but he has a karma of 32
    That's a simple transliteration of 23 for those keeping score at home.

    --

    --
    "L'IT c'est moi!"
  30. C-14 Dating facts by Katydid · · Score: 3
    I am not an expert, but the Archaeology course I'm taking just finished dealing with dating methods and I have lots of notes and texts to refer to. I also have a chemistry background, so I'm pretty sure I understand this. If anyone wants to correct me, feel free.

    C-14 dating is only accurate before about 1600 AD, but it's not because the ratio hasn't changed enough. The reason is inherent in the method, which is based on the decay process of a radioactive isotope of carbon (C-14, naturally). The ratio of C-14 to C-12 occurs at the same level worldwide at any given time and is maintained within living organisms. After an organism's death, it ceases to exchange carbon with its environment and thus contains a given level of C-14. This C-14 gradually decays at a constant rate - the half-life is now estimated at 5730 years. Dating is accomplished by measuring the current level of C-14 in a sample in the present and comparing it to the amount it contained at death (known as a percentage of total carbon). Algebra gives us an age.

    The problem is that while the decay rate is constant over long periods of time, it's extremely random over shorter spans. So there would be a large error in dates from a sample of, say, George Washington's hair because not enough C-14 has decayed to even out the hills and valleys. Also, there is inherent error assiciated with the process; most current radiocarbon dates have an error of +-80 or 100 years (depending on the measuring process and lab). This gives 67% probability of being within that range; for 95%, one must give an error of +-160 or 200 years. So a date of 1600 AD (+-160 for 95% probability) would be essentially useless. (Yeah, the body died between 1440 and 1760. Aren't you glad you paid thousands for that knowledge?)

    Also, in specific response to this comment, old wood samples cannot be dated to within "a few weeks" unless you have extremely accurate records to work with, and then radiocarbon can tell you age to only within a few decades (my book says the most accurate [most expensive] methods can give +-20 years). And we now know that the ratio of C-14 to normal carbon in the atmosphere has varied widely over the past few thousand years. We can give calibrated dates by dating the inner rings of Very Old trees which have been absolutely dated. My book says that anything more than 9000 to 10000 years old cannot be accurately calibrated at this time.

    So next time you see a radiocarbon date of 30,000 years ago, remember that it's in radiocarbon years, not calendar years, and the two should not be confused.

    Way more than you wanted or needed to know, I'm sure.

  31. The Boy Who Cried "Alien" by antizeus · · Score: 4
    It just sickens me when I see people interpret the slightest weirdness as a some sort of extraterrestrial. What sort of foolishness is this? First of all, the vast distances between stars make most interstellar travel unfeasible. Even if some people from another star system sent a ship here, then where is the other evidence? Any realistic ship would have to be a big multi-generational affair with lots of entities on it, so where are all the other skulls?

    No, the obvious answer is that this skull is from a Dero, one of the evil dwarves who live under the hollow earth.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  32. abstract notions by 311Stylee · · Score: 2

    There is a lot of evidence in the article to suggest a hoax or at least a scam, but after looking at the pictures at their site, I had to say "hmmmm."


    There are many details that don't make sense in context to what I know:


    The skull looks strikingly humanoid, especially the 'seams' (not the right word, but whatever) on the back of the skull where the pieces of skull grew together after birth. The mere presence of those 'seams' mean that the 'alien' was born in a mammilian way. Seems like life from another planet should be a little more original...


    Humans can't breed with aliens. You don't believe me? Try having impregnating chimp - their genes are 99% identical to ours and it still doesn't work. Unless the 'aliens' engineered a special breed that could procreate with humans there is no way. This is a little stupid though, if they can create a compatible being, why not just clone humans in the lab? Why mess with humans at all if they have genetic (or equivalent) mastery?


    While the article discussed genetic disorders as a cause of deformation, it did not explore other avenues of deformation: False Hellebore (Veratrum viride), when eaten by pregnant sheep causes the baby to be born with only one eye socket with both eyes in it! I was unable to find documentation on the web, but I read this (and saw a picture) doing research for a project of mine (don't ask:).


    They don't seem to be getting much funding at all. It normally seems that fanatics jump all over this kind of thing. Why then, are they having trouble making money? A: they are really bad at communicating with sponsors OR B: the sponsors back out after getting some information not included in the webpage. It also seems strange that not one of the 'experts' they talked to wanted to have their name used anywhere.


    Otherwise, i quite liked the site and the big hi-res pictures.


    Hey! I think I just spotted an alien! Oh, wait, it's just my roommate, nevermind.


  33. Alien Morphology by maynard · · Score: 2
    Even on earth, bilateral symmetry was chosen essentially by accident - one of the huge explosions of life-forms (pre-Cambrian, I think, but could be wrong) had trilateral symmetry and other even wierder (to us) things popping up. It happened that, ON EARTH, bilateral symmetry was best, AT THAT POINT IN TIME. But what about Squids / Octopi / Starfish / other non bilaterally symmetric creatures? Or what about the majority of quadrapeds / other significantly different-looking creatures to us? I'll guarantee that if any of these creatures developed significant intelligence (I mean significant enough to develop space travel), they would NOT LOOK LIKE HUMANS!
    Excellent point. However, since bilateral symmetry continues to work well in our environment, there's no reason to exclude the possibility of "it" independently evolving to a similar bipedal form, though through a totally different evolutionary path. We can only guess, by extrapolating morphological differences in closed ecological communities such as the Galapagos Islands, or Australia, against common species elsewhere, that since similar forms repeat on Earth along fairly divergent paths, such forms are possible, and desirable in many conditions, not just here but in similar ecological niches all over the universe as well. Though all evolved from a different branch of life's family tree, each evolutionary history forged an anatomy between the kangaroo, dinosaur, bird, and human whereby all walk as bipeds.

    Pre-Cambrian -- yes. Stephen J. Gould wrote a nice book called "Wonderful Life" about the Pre-Cambrian explosion that presents a litany of amazingly weird fossils containing phylum which are long since extinct. Most probably died off from bad luck, the environment changing on them faster than they could biologically react, in an evolutionary sense, and BAM! -- they're gone; a view of extinction as a biological failure to change through self-replication to meet a new environmental stress -- there's a threshold for all self-replicating systems (no matter what the substrate) where evolution fails because the requisite change required for survival exceeds the time constraints of the organisms replication cycle. For example, an unfortunate volcanic eruption, meteor, or fast weather change -- no way to screw one's way out of that mess -- and it's toast for good. Some weird-ass shit in there; definitely worth a read.

    Not that this explains "Little Grey Men" and their -- ahem -- invasive exams. Ouch!

  34. Okay, who's been sniffing the glue? by wilkinsm · · Score: 2

    You guys must have _something_ better to do than post to alien stories on a saturday night...

    Okay, maybe not.

    If I happen across an alien, I'll make sure to send it to Hermos's house with a sign on it that says: "First Post!"