• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Peter Khoury (Australia): Alien Encounters; DNA From Alien Hair

'Alien' because perhaps it's unusual, but not 'alien' because it's extraterrestrial. Nothing from the case suggests this was done by ETs - it's an assumption. These sort of night visitations have the ET moniker pinned onto them - this doesn't actually mean that they're the result of any ET interaction with humans. There's no mention of a UFO either with these particular 'abduction' events. This case, like many others, has close parallels with stories of sleep paralysis and older tales of incubi/sucubi - it would IMHO be unwise to assume that the root cause for this event is ET-based. The net needs to be spread much further into other areas rather than have the whole thing narrowed down to the ET side of things from the outset.
 
'Fortean MB' ... Does Just What It Says On The Label!

JerryB said:
'Alien' because perhaps it's unusual, but not 'alien' because it's extraterrestrial. Nothing from the case suggests this was done by ETs - it's an assumption.
Click to expand...
We are talking about 'visitors' who can apparently travel through dimensional portals using mirrors here, JerryB. ;)

How 'alien' does it have to be? I think there's even a suggestion that they may even have seeded some colony in the wilds of Outer Mongolia sometime in the distant past.

So ET's (Nordic/Mongol types), or from a parallel, or future alternative reality?

Great stuff, eh? :p
 
I have to agree with JerryB. The best thing to do is rule out what it is not before jumping to far fetched conclusions.On the long list of what it could be I believe that the explanation of a ET is probably near the bottom if it even makes the list.
 
GangProbed said:
[...I believe that the explanation of a ET is probably near the bottom...]
Click to expand...

Coming from someone whose screenname is GangProbed, I'd have to agree! :D :eek:

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's not like me to have a go at a new person. I just get the silies sometimes. Welcome to the board!
 
GangProbed said:
I have to agree with JerryB. The best thing to do is rule out what it is not before jumping to far fetched conclusions.On the long list of what it could be I believe that the explanation of a ET is probably near the bottom if it even makes the list.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find the CSICOP offices down the hall... --->
 
Yes; I suppose we have to take phenomena at face value until we get better information.

Assuming the DNA tests are correct, the hair is human, but it seems have a different genotype to phenotype; blond asian people are rare.

This is something I can imagine happening a lot when genetic manipulation becomes commonplace; people will be changing their phenotype constantly to match current fashions.

So the hair might come from a citizen of a future society with access to time travel,
a parallel universe with more advanced technology than our own,

or a population of uplifted humans lifted from the Taklamakan two thousand years ago and transprted to Tau Ceti.

or someone with access to peroxide
 
Eburacum45 said:
Yes; I suppose we have to take phenomena at face value until we get better information.
Click to expand...
Please.

After all. If we just wanted to rip into, apparently, anomalous evidence, straight off the bat, we would be reading the 'Skeptical Enquirer' and worshipping at the feet of Science (and wherever it is that the Abrading Randy, likes to be worshipped, allegedly).

Could we at least get claims and theories up and running before the intellectual 'Romper Stompers' move in? :(
 
Sorry if the discussion does not follow your guide lines.

However, I would rather worship at the feet of science than be a lap dog of science-fiction.

I am just stating my opinion.
 
GangProbed said:
Sorry if the discussion does not follow your guide lines.

However, I would rather worship at the feet of science than be a lap dog of science-fiction.

I am just stating my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm no lapdog of science fiction, mate.

But, there's no discussion when the flat splat crushing of somebody's theory is used to stop it before it begins.

There's no examination of the evidence, when you cherry pick the bits you want to dissect and use them to dismiss the rest.

There's no examining the reality behind a theory, when you jump on the most prosaic and obvious flaws and miss the interesting stuff just around the corner. ;)
 
So stop being so uptight and discuss it.
I do not see anyone here stoping you.
Just because people do not agree with you does not mean its a dead subject.

Lets hear what your big revelation on this is?
I am interested. Even if I probablly wont agree.
 
GangProbed said:
So stop being so uptight and discuss it.
I do not see anyone here stoping you.
Just because people do not agree with you does not mean its a dead subject.

Lets hear what your big revelation on this is?
I am interested. Even if I probablly wont agree.
Click to expand...
Tonight, I am mostly discoursing on the general level of credulous scepticism creeping in to the MB, these days.

I'm interested in the prevalence of the instant "this is unscientific" 'squelch.'

I'd like to see a bit more discussion of the fabulous and incredible on the site, even if the phenomena are disputed, rather than a flat 'splatter' that ends up chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

Kind Regards,

Andro Man
Semiotician/Amateur Consulting Cynic
 
As a side bar... Scientific 'fact'. No such animal. We have a set of models, that's all. Anything that throws up inifinities, even if its not a bad fit of the observed a lot of the time isn't 'right'. to say that is is the truth, rather than an approximation is as unscientific as saying it all works by tiny demons pushing things. To think that the model is reality is to say that the description of a tiger is dangerous. Alas we are easily seduced by how clever we think we are...
 
I'm interested that certain 'assumptions' are made about the circumstances of the 'visitation' the use of the description 'Nordic' type for one of the females sitting on the victim's bed, suggests
  • earlier encounters with the denizens of UFO's when the 'Nordics' were one of the groups identified as aliens
  • David Icke's far more recent pandimensional, shape changing reptilians, the Nordics being one of the groups Icke and his followers has identified
    [/list=a]

    So, what gives these encounters shape and form and why are they recurring?

    Do the examples, gleaned from magazines, TV, Films and other media, come first?

    Or, does the victim's inexplicable and disturbing night time experience, need to be explained and the solution, 'aliens' come later?

    Or, is the experience, 'real', on some hard to explain level, the only proof of its reality being the re-occurrence of similiar experiences, with different victims and subjects?
 
Except, of course there's the physical proof of the hair and the DNA sample.

So, where did it come from?

And, how did it get to where it was allegedly discovered?
 
The hair is an interesting one. I'm a little wary about the results of the PCR, as there is always a risk of contamination as you're taking an extremely small quantity of "stuff" (not quite homeopathic in quantity ;) ) and then amplifying it to detectable levels. We need to make sure that we're not dealing with Brundle-fly. ;)

Still, would be interesting to find out more.
 
So, where did it come from?
Click to expand...

Where did it come from? Well, there are plenty of places it could have came from anywhere. He could have picked the hair up when he touched the sink in the bathroom and it got stuck down there when he went to sake. There are a whole host of places something like that could have come from without having to believe that he got a alien hummer. As for the whole abduction thing I am convened that these people are somewhere between a sleeping and wake state and they are dreaming or it is a condition exhibited by the brain as a reaction to your physical state at the time. Sort of like how all near death experiences are described the same. I feel sorry for the guy but I just do not believe that what he says happened actually happened.

"...despite the fact that we humans are great collectors of souvenirs,_not one of these persons (claiming to have been aboard a flying saucer)_has brought back so much as an extraterrestrial tool or artifact,_which could, once and for all, resolve the UFO mystery." Philip Klass_
 
GangProbed said:
As for the whole abduction thing I am convened that these people are somewhere between a sleeping and wake state and they are dreaming or it is a condition exhibited by the brain as a reaction to your physical state at the time. Sort of like how all near death experiences are described the same.
Click to expand...
But, let's just suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the hair really was a physical manifestation of the through the looking glass, space hookers.

First, there's the apparition, then the hair, not the other way round. Perhaps one validates the other, but surely we should pause on the edge of the abyss and contemplate the unthinkable and incredible, before we settle for the mundane and chipped enamel plate full of 'scientific reality' ? :)
 
Either way Androman, Chalker et al are assuming from the outset that this is an ET-related event, without (apparently) any recourse to other possible factors.
 
JerryB said:
Either way Androman, Chalker et al are assuming from the outset that this is an ET-related event, without (apparently) any recourse to other possible factors.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. That's an angle, but instead of dismissing the story out of hand, why not start from that point and work backwards, or sideways, to get the larger picture?

There's a narrative here. It may, or may not, be formed from pre-conceived notions and the discreet building blocks of beliefs and ideas related to alien abduction (and for all I know, witches and succubi too).

Who knows, perhaps studying it from a more careful perspective will take us back to Shaver and the Deros and Teros in Agharta and Shambala?

But, then I'm not a scientist, I'm a lot more interested in how these stories hang together and why they persist, in various forms.
 
That's what I'm trying to say - the mistake is the assumption that what has taken place has an ET origin, when that is not a known factor.
 
JerryB said:
That's what I'm trying to say - the mistake is the assumption that what has taken place has an ET origin, when that is not a known factor.
Click to expand...
Yes. But, you could be too busy disproving the ET scenario/hypothesis and miss the big picture.
 
He is now very sick

The person named in the 13 page story on his experience who I maintain his website also rang me yesterday to inform he he is having a cat scan for bleeding internally.

it is directly related to his experinces.

I also have another friend who was in charge of a multi million dollar town house developments who now suffers severe chronic fatigue; also directly related to his years of visitations.

He owns his own graphics company also but is unable to continue doing it.

Its the two hair samples which we should be discussing, as Bill Chalkers mentions if we had 100 more then we could speculate on there origins more; but for now DNA PCR is all there is to test the hair samples and the results were done under controlled laboratory conditions by competent Scientists.

Some of the behind the scenes scientists are well respected in their fileds but stay anonomous because of there high standing and there employers wouldnt understand them using laboraties for alledged 'alien hair samples'.
 
I can help with any questions you have

Im off to Rex Gilroys 60th Birthday tonight and Bil Chalker will be there, I will ask Bill to give me an update.

The entire sequence of events was conducted under the strictest scientific conditions, nothing was taken for granted or chance.

The mention of pure black eyes; meaning there was two big black eyes with no other colour at all in the entire eye region, not even Somalians have pure black eyes or kalahari Bushmen, they all have some reddish pigment colours in the eye region.

These were entirely black, no different to a sharks, the idea was that she had some kind of bio-logical traits that appeared the eyes would not need any protection in the sun.

So the eyes were unusual in that sense. The eyes were also alott larger than normal human eyes.

What I find the most interesting of the entire paper is the fact that it appears that advanced hair cloning techniques were mentioned.

You have to also remember until Kerry Mullis invented the PCR tests this couldnt be attempted.

Mullis also claims to have had encounters with beings.
 
AndroMan said:
Yes. But, you could be too busy disproving the ET scenario/hypothesis and miss the big picture.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so - my main problem is that, from the outset, the assumption is that these 'visitations' are ET-based. The thing is, as I've said, there could be a variety of causes for these incidents, but they don't seem to be a factor for consideration by researchers like Chalker. Even Java Jimi's speculation about the entities' eyes already veer into the assumption of a possible non-terrestrial morphology.
 
Good news I've solved this mystery from the website I think:
Two types of DNA were found depending on where the mitochondrial DNA testing occurs, namely confirming the rare Chinese type DNA in the hair shaft and indicating a rare possible Basque/Gaelic type DNA in the root section.
Click to expand...
I presume that the author of the report was un aware of the populations of red headed people with european features (certainly extramly similar to the gallic people in aperance at least) in the chinese desert. The mummies were found in the late 1980's and were dated to around 3000 years old.

some pictures and discriptions of the mummies
 
JerryB said:
No, I don't think so - my main problem is that, from the outset, the assumption is that these 'visitations' are ET-based. The thing is, as I've said, there could be a variety of causes for these incidents, but they don't seem to be a factor for consideration by researchers like Chalker. Even Java Jimi's speculation about the entities' eyes already veer into the assumption of a possible non-terrestrial morphology.
Click to expand...
So you're saying its just as (un)safe to assume that she was from another dimension or from a population living under the Earth's surface but we may never know because we blind ourselves to these possibilities by instantly assuming she was an non-terrestrial.
 
Bannik said:
So you're saying its just as (un)safe to assume that she was from another dimension or from a population living under the Earth's surface but we may never know because we blind ourselves to these possibilities by instantly assuming she was an non-terrestrial.
Click to expand...

Er...not exactly. I didn't mention anything about whether she was possibly from either of those places. I'm saying that the case has parallels with other types of experience and thus shouldn't be nailed down from the outset as being the actions of ETs interacting with humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top