But you trust what Rupert Murdoch says, and that's a Murdoch-owned publication. So, if he's amplifying NASA falsehoods, why should you believe anyone or anything associated with him?
Remind me again who Dan Oingo Boingo worked for until recently, and you admitted getting information from his podcast.
Here's the thing, though: Any asshole on the fucking planet with a smartphone can have a YouTube channel and/or podcast (I'm speaking from experience here), but not everyone can work for Fox News. If you work for Fox, then you're someone who says things that Rupert likes. If you don't like Rupert, then you ought to have some thoughts about the people who work for him that are in line with him. Oh, and while we're at it, I studiously do everything I can do avoid folks who pay money to Musk for their blue check on Twitter. So, yeah, I can recognize that people can use a conduit provided by a garbage human, to talk about things that said garbage human doesn't like. Not entirely happy about it, but I recognize what reality is. That's a bit different, however, than being on Elmo's payroll.
Metallic spheres found on Pacific floor are interstellar in origin, Harvard professor finds None of his findings have been confirmed by an outside group, but he kinda undercuts his credibility with some of the things he says. The spheres are a combination of elements that haven't been found together in anything known to come from this solar system. Okay, that's possible. It's also possible stuff like this does exist in our solar system and this is just the first time we've found it. I don't know enough about the topic as to how one should weigh each possibility, so consider them to be equal, I guess. However, when Ari says, "We think that this formed on XYZ-type of planet." he's just talking out of his ass. There's no way that they could determine how the things formed because the samples are just too small.
> “This is a historic discovery, marking the first time that humans hold materials from a large interstellar object," Hoskinson said in a statement. uh no > a paper has been submitted for publication in an unnamed scientific journal. Skimmed the linked paper, if their assertions are true I personally would consider the spherules are likely extraterrestrial. It gets into the BeLaU stuff on p. 15. > The very low content of refractory siderophile elements with affinity to iron (Re) suggest a source planet with an Fe core. siderophile adjective 1. = siderophilic. 2. Of an element: commonly found in metallic phases (sometimes specifically in association with iron) rather than combined as silicates or sulphides, and believed to have become relatively concentrated in the earth's core when the earth was molten. Compare chalcophil, "lithophil". . . . okay then. They definitely seem to be using science words to support their speculation even if they go a little far (can't say that all the special spherules are found in the key area when you haven't finished looking at all the spherules). A lot of this planet speculation is based on magma science which I have no clue about. At the end they acknowledge that this could be the result of the usual processes going on inside stars, but that's clearly not where their minds are at.
I realize the importance of this statement at the beginning of the DNA paper will escape you, but shit like this was one of the ways the OJ jurors could rationalize finding him "Not Guilty." If you want eye-bleedingly accurate reasons why this ass-covering is so telling, I'm sure that @Order2Chaos and @matthunter will be able to do so far better than I can. Now, this bit Is rather important. See, all the lab can tell us is that the contamination doesn't belong to anyone who works for the lab. This means that unless we get a sequence of DNA that doesn't match that of humans, or any other known Earth species, it's going to be difficult to say for certain that the results prove anything. Seriously, dude, if I was on a jury at a murder trial and this was said about the DNA evidence that was supposed to prove who the murderer was, I don't give a fuck who the victim was, or who the killer is, I'm voting not guilty. Period. Paragraph. The lab may have done their job well, and it was the people who collected the sample who fucked things up. I don't know. Note that it does not say what kind of individual. Again, no mention of the type of individual. Yet again, no mention of the type of individual. Are they from the same species? Are we looking at a Fiji Mermaid type of situation? Okay, what sex chromosomes are we talking about here? On Earth, the chromosomes that determine an individual's sex can be different from one species to the next. Primates are X & Y, birds are Z & W, and reptiles can be either X & Y or Z & W. I believe there are others out there but I'm not about to go digging for them. However, if a non-terrestrial species used the same chromosomes to determine sex that human ones do would be huge fucking news. Because that would mean we're talking a Trek-type situation, or it would mean that the laws of physics and chemistry dictate that no matter where you go in the universe, you're always going to find the same chromosomes determining sex. Absolutely nothing about what this report says, however, enables us to tell what species this might be. That's a tad important. For the fourth time, "WTF kind of individual are we talking about here?" Potentially this means that they're related, though it could also mean that they're from the same individual (whatever type of individual that might be). The report's not exactly clear on this. That's muddy sampling, it happens, and doesn't mean anything at all. This is from the next report. Do you have any idea of how astronomically small the odds would have to be for monkeys in another solar system to advance enough that they could travel the stars and then die on another planet that also has monkeys? The only way they couldn't be so vanishingly small is if they were time travelers, or the laws of physics and chemistry are so strict that primates evolving on other planets is a certainty. I put the idea of time travelers far, far ahead of the idea that we can expect to find monkeys wherever we go in space, and I don't put any stock in UFOs being time travelers. At this point, the next step should be an analysis to see how that DNA compares to any known primates. I'll save my comments for the next report for another post. (Oh, and that's really all that was interesting from that report.)
This is the third report from your linked site. People. ET is made of people. Now, here's this next bit that sounds interesting Followed by this admission: In short, they admit that they don't have access to enough information to conclusively state anything about the origins of those samples. There are two very important things to keep in mind about this: 1.) If it was alien DNA, it might have been so contaminated by exposure here on Earth that unless the sample was very carefully taken, that they couldn't get any meaningful results. 2.) The test was done in 2018, on machines that were designed and built some time prior to the testing. Here's why this is important: Do you remember that window of time in the late 90s/early 00s when we were seeing just insane leaps of computing power? (A similar thing happened in the early days of smartphones as well, you might recall.) The same thing is happening now with DNA sequencing. New machines are so much more capable than older machines that the big biotech firms are selling off their machines that are ~5 years old and buying newer ones all the time. A newer machine could undoubtedly provide clearer results. Ideally, it would tell us with 100% certainty if it was Earth-based DNA or not. Until then, all we can do is put these results into the category "Unknown." They're like Schroedinger's Cat before you open the box. Both alive and dead. On to the next report. If those were the results of a paternity test, no court in the US would declare someone to be the father based on that. It has a chart that indicates there is some overlap with Vicuña DNA (that's a llama, BTW). That points towards the idea that it is from a terrestrial species, since I think, that everything on Earth shares around 40%+ of the same DNA. However, depending upon what those genes are used for, it may or may not be significant. For example, if those genes are related to being able to breathe oxygen, they might be common to every species in the universe that breathes oxygen. We don't know. If, however, those genes are related to things like the color of a Vicuña's fur, then odds are it ain't aliens. Looking at their chart, it appears that the species that particular sample shows the greatest match with is a type of cattle. Not enough for one to say that it comes from a cow, but not enough differences to say that it absolutely couldn't come from a cow. What one would need to know is what those genes do in known species. If you have that, then you could hazard a guess that would be difficult, though not impossible, to shoot holes in as to the origin of the DNA species. Interestingly enough, one of the charts in that report shows that the Ancient004 sample (the one that's hardest get any matches with known species) has the strongest match with humans. This doesn't match up with the earlier chart showing that the strongest match came from cattle. Not sure what that's about. So much for that report, let's see the next one. Doesn't really tell us much of anything at all. Just means that it's not likely to be human, still could be a primate though, and still could be of an earthly origin.
This next report is from 2017. In short, either the samples were contaminated to the point that all we could find was human DNA, or they belonged to humans. Let's see what the last report says. I went through the reports labeled DNA test results and quoted the relevant bits. I'm not seeing anything approaching a smocking gun here by any stretch of the imagination. Your move, Sparky. Now, when are you going to read Unconventional Flying Objects by Paul R. Hill as I suggested that you do, years ago?
I wouldn't go with the "DNA sequencers in 2018 weren't good enough" argument - Illumina technology has improved, but the capability in 2018 was still enough to sequence the equivalent of 100s of human genomes in a 5 day run. All they've really improved since then is the capacity of the flowcells so they can pack even more DNA fragments on (even back in 2018 it was ~1600 million per run) and improve the computing so the run still only takes 5 days. The main point, as you say, is that the bulk of the DNA results come back to human. Ancient DNA is heavily fragmented (even moreso than we normally shear it down to for sequencing... could be <30 bases long) and very short fragments can be difficult to assign to any reference genome. There are also a LOT of bacteria and other simpler organisms we can't culture outside their native environment so they aren't IN databases (or, if they are due to being sequenced as part of metagenome projects - where you don't try to culture them, you just extract ALL the DNA present in the environment and sequence the lot - they are listed as "unclassified"). Ancient DNA samples are usually quite loaded with bacteria, as you might imagine. Solid point with the X/Y chromosome stuff. Mammals have X/Y, birds and reptiles differ. Expecting that something that shares NO evolutionary history with us would have the same system when even lifeforms we DO share evolutionary history with DON'T... I mean, the chances alien life uses the same base-pairing system for DNA at ALL are low enough...
I gave you the information, you came up with your own conclusion that I suspect was already predetermined.
Yes, but it has only been in, I think, the last year or so, that machines have hit the market that are capable of figuring out issues related to so-called "junk DNA." There were parts of the genome that got slapped with that stupid label because we didn't have the tech to figure out what, if any, differences they might have had with DNA in other species since they're fairly common to other species as well. Depending upon the conditions of the samples the labs had to work with, they may have gotten more of the "junk" than the easily identifiable stuff. Not to mention that it's only been probably about 30 or so years that we've even considered making a serious study of all the bacteria and other microorganisms that are out there. I know that one medical research company trying to find new antibiotics is asking employees who travel on vacation to bring back soil samples from their trips in hopes that they might turn up something useful. Right, species on Earth have four amino acids in their DNA, there are a number of other amino acids out there that scientists think could be used as well, but so far, haven't been able to create anything using them. It's entirely possible that life could evolve elsewhere using different combinations of those acids than we have here on Earth. No idea if the standard machines used for things like sequencing could figure that out. Hell, they might even fuck shit up to the point where it gives a reading that makes it look like the thing was from Earth. (Oooooh! Story idea! Forensic scientists are trying to sequence some DNA from a crime scene, but don't realize that it contains alien DNA and because of the interaction of the amplifying compounds in the sequencer, it creates a new species that fucks shit up. Though, actually, there's a kajillion different ways to do the story, so it doesn't have to be a modern version of The Blob.)
Says the guy who comes running here with any random story that he thinks might portray certain politicians in a negative light. Dude, what I did was science. I looked at the evidence you provided, and pointed out what it said. I didn't resort to any bullshit debating tricks, such as seizing on a typo and calling the whole thing invalid. I also didn't declare it all to be bullshit because there's some failings with things like chain-of-custody that would absolutely be the kinds of things that would get this shit tossed out in a court of law. (Again, remember the OJ trial.) Nor did I say that because the one sample couldn't provide clean results in one of the tests that this meant the whole thing is a fraud, or that it means anything other than it should be considered "unknown." So, it could be human DNA, it could be non-human DNA, it could be alien DNA. Calling it anything other than "unknown" is being biased. Doesn't matter what option you pick, if it's not "unknown," then it is showing a preference for something that isn't there in the data as presented. Now, gun to my head, I would say that it is most likely from an organism that evolved on the Earth (our Earth, not one from a parallel timeline or something like that), simply because there are more things on Earth from the Earth than elsewhere in the universe. I will also say that this doesn't preclude them from being alien, simply because there's a whole lotta questions about how the samples were obtained and contamination issues. Without highly detailed documentation about how the mummies were found and the samples collected from them, one has to admit the possibility that the process was so botched that human or other terrestrial DNA contaminated the samples, and that's what we're seeing, not the actual DNA of the mummies. Additionally, one cannot rule out the possibility that life could evolve somewhere else and not have DNA, but have something entirely different that acts like DNA, even though it isn't. The Earthly DNA results are simply because our machines are designed to spit out stuff based on Earthly DNA, and it doesn't matter how good the sample is, or how powerful the machine is, you're never going to get the information you want because it's not designed to find that information. For example, lots of people say that it might be possible for there to be silicon-based life, because silicon can be swapped out with carbon in a lot of chemical compounds, and the resulting substance is fairly similar to the carbon-based one. Silane is one example where you swap the carbon atoms for silicon in fossil fuels. Would silicon-based life have DNA? I don't know. Would it use the same base pairs as our DNA does? I don't know. Would any of our sequencers be able to figure anything out about it? I don't know. Were the tests done such that they could rule out that it was silicon-based life? I don't know. How can you expect anyone to conclude that those mummies are anything definitive given all of that? I'm not even throwing everything I possibly could to try to discredit the results, I'm doing my best to stick within the information provided If this information was handed to me in a death penalty case, I don't care who the victim was, or who the killer was (and we can pick anyone who has ever lived to be the killer or victim), I would vote to acquit because there just isn't enough there to make such a decision on. Even if the killer was someone I'd shoot on sight, that's not enough evidence to convict them of a particular murder. That's looking at the evidence objectively and not jumping to any conclusions about it. Can you not see that? Would you be willing to stake your life on such evidence?
Oh, and I stumbled across this article just now. Since much of it is just inane Tweets saying things like "Hurr, it looks like ET," I'll skip quoting all of it, and just do the relevant parts. And unless you've spent some time studying just how weird such things can be, it's an easy mistake to think the thing isn't human. So, I gotta say, it ain't looking good for ET and his buddy there.
TF, you might want to refrain from "I did the science" when you also said this: "Right, species on Earth have four amino acids in their DNA" They have four BASES in their DNA, referring to the base (A, T, G or C) carried on the individual dNTP molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid. Amino acids are part of proteins, NOT the DNA. And there are 21 known amino acids. As for "DNA sequencers have gotten better at junk DNA"... we now have long-read sequencers that are better at sequencing through long stretches of repetitive DNA (sequences that occur very often in the genome and thus hard to say where in the genome assembly they should be). This wouldn't help with ancient DNA because, as I mentioned, it's highly fragmented so you aren't going to have long stretches of intact DNA to sequence.
What would you say if I said I agree with you? It’s inconclusive. Turns out that the DNA testing hasn’t been done one the mummies they rolled out yesterday though. So I guess we have to wait for the data on the new ones.
