The Ketchum Report

[southernyahoo]

I haven't seen any published references for either, they are just conflicting claims, maybe we can confirm one or the other using the same standard for evidence.

SY,

Do you have any references on that one?

Edit to add this.

http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2011march.htm

Recovering mtDNA so easily from both samples meant they were well preserved during 900 years in a dry mine tunnel. The fact that the Starchild’s mtDNA apparently belonged to a normal human haplogroup indicated that its maternal line was entirely human.

If the Starchild’s nuclear DNA responded positively to primers designed to recover human nuDNA, that would establish its nuDNA as also human, confirming it as an astoundingly bizarre deformity, but 100% human. However, if its nuclear DNA proved to be other than entirely human, the Starchild Skull would represent a new type of humanoid—period.

Edited April 3, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

That is a very interesting question. I would have to know more about the nature of said objection before I could comment.

Translation: you can't answer the challenge.

Edited April 3, 2012 by darwinist

[bipedalist]

This single date was posted 22 February and happens to fall on a Thursday.

Not to make trouble...

RE

Notice I didn't say I hadn't picked a date; Just not that date, just to be accurate but thanks for your kind attention to the matter.

It is a Thursday and it was a Thursday as good as any other...... something wrong with guessing? I believe that was what people were invited to do in the the thread at one humorous point? And, of course, that is the manner in which I picked it (no special knowledge here other than my own research knowledge on the topic).

Edited April 3, 2012 by bipedalist

[southernyahoo]

I haven't seen any published references for either, they are just conflicting claims, maybe we can confirm one or the other using the same standard for evidence.

Edit to add this.

http://www.starchild...na2011march.htm

Recovering mtDNA so easily from both samples meant they were well preserved during 900 years in a dry mine tunnel. The fact that the Starchild’s mtDNA apparently belonged to a normal human haplogroup indicated that its maternal line was entirely human.

If the Starchild’s nuclear DNA responded positively to primers designed to recover human nuDNA, that would establish its nuDNA as also human, confirming it as an astoundingly bizarre deformity, but 100% human. However, if its nuclear DNA proved to be other than entirely human, the Starchild Skull would represent a new type of humanoid—period.

Found a little more here Darwinist....

These results were not surprising since the 2003 Trace Genetics test concluded that the Starchild had a human mother. However, these were not the only results. Other BLAST results, like the one below for a 342 nucleotide fragment, gave a very different answer.

It states that within the millions of DNA base pair strings catalogued in the NIH database, none were even “similar†to this section of the Starchild Skull’s DNA! And please note that this astonishing result was obtained with the search parameters set to the broadest match criteria that seeks even a “somewhat similar†match, not only an exact match.

[Guest Jodie]

But they still don't know what the Starchild is SY.

[Guest]

Mike, I've personally seen three of the Lovelock Cave skeletons. They were on display in the Mark Twain Museum in Virginia City, Nevada during a period that at least included 1969-1978. Bonafide mummified tall skeletons with preserved red hair. You'll find there've been a couple of related threads. They disappeared sometime in the '80s. For a long time I thought they'd been "repatriated" by the local Paiutes, but when I got around to researching it with the Nevada Historical Society located on the University of Nevada, Reno campus, I was told that the Bureau of Land Management had taken possession of them. You might want to google BLM museums and see what you come up with.

I´m a skeptic ( although I don´t care much for the skeptic/believer grouping, it sounds far too religious for me!), and to me it just means capable of skeptic and analytical thinking.

That put aside, I just want to state that I don´t doubt that JDL saw the aforementioned skeletons at the Mark Twain Museum. I think I read a couple of other reports from people, who allegedly saw them too at the same museum.

For now I don´t care if they were of extraordinarily hight or not, or they were redhaired as such, or the hair color was due to some conservation issue. But it must be possible to establish if the museum have written records of the skeletons and were they went. After that is established, we should discuss their features, if we can locate them.

Sorry for beeing of topic, but I think it´s quite an issue: Did these skeletons exist or not!

Edited April 3, 2012 by darwinist

[AaronD]

Man I wish I woulda majored in biology...err something like that, maybe I could keep up with you DNA geeks

[Guest]

Thanks SY,

I´ll have a look at it.

[southernyahoo]

But they still don't know what the Starchild is SY.

So they have a skull that tells them nothing????

[Guest BFSleuth]

Actually, I think the skull has been talking all these years... we just haven't figured out how to listen.

[AaronD]

BF I can totally agree with that!

[JDL]

I´m a skeptic ( although I don´t care much for the skeptic/believer grouping, it sounds far too religious for me!), and to me it just means capable of skeptic and analytical thinking.

That put aside, I just want to state that I don´t doubt that JDL saw the aforementioned skeletons at the Mark Twain Museum. I think I read a couple of other reports from people, who allegedly saw them too at the same museum.

For now I don´t care if they were of extraordinarily hight or not, or they were redhaired as such, or the hair color was due to some conservation issue. But it must be possible to establish if the museum have written records of the skeletons and were they went. After that is established, we should discuss their features, if we can locate them.

Sorry for beeing of topic, but I think it´s quite an issue: Did these skeletons exist or not!

Hairy Man believes that some of the remains are in the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology at Berkeley. I don't think, though, that they are from the same three individuals.

Check out the previous Lovelock threads. There was an old miner who made it big in uranium who lived in Reno. He had a skull from the cave, that he passed down to his son. His son, a class act, used it as an ashtray whenever he had guests over.

Edited April 3, 2012 by JDL

[Guest Jodie]

So they have a skull that tells them nothing????

When someone can tell me what it is then I guess we would, so far, all I am hearing is what it isn't.

[JDL]

Sas, Dunning simply pronounces that there is no evidence. I'd like to see a serious investigation into the contemporary acquisitions and holdings of those institutions to which such material would have been sent back in the day. Many of us believe that such an investigation will bear fruit. It is an achievable task with quantifiable results. So far as I can see, Dunning is no more than a modestly successful pundit with an agenda.

[Hairy Man]

Hairy Man believes that some of the remains are in the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology at Berkeley. I don't think, though, that they are from the same three individuals.

Check out the previous Lovelock threads. There was an old miner who made it big in uranium who lived in Reno. He had a skull from the cave, that he passed down to his son. His son, a class act, used it as an ashtray whenever he had guests over.

This is probably better suited to another thread, but here is an excellent interview with Dr. Gene Hattori talking about Lovelock Cave and the traditional stories behind the legend as well as Spirit Cave and other Native American information. Well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8a2baHNaI&feature=plcp&context=C4b4c4cbVDvjVQa1PpcFNVpStXe5CISUqPFLxOwq3IBEnwR3Cipnk=

P.S. I've seen bigger pestles here in the Sierra's...