Starchild Skull – Short Update

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2017-10-04 14:45:52

Since posting the original article,  http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=454&Itemid=51  I have added this to the bottom:    Update 10 Sep 2017  Mel Fabregas responded thus (my response below):  From: Mel Fabregas [mailto:mel@manticore.com] Sent: 04 September 2017 02:44To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….Subject: Your open letter… Andrew,I thought we were friends. If you had a problem with me, whatever it might have been, I would have expected you to come to me directly for clarification. That is what true men do. Not hide behind an open letter, which would have been more appropriate for someone you’ve never interacted with before. That is not the case here. Obviously, you and I have a different style in how we deal with differences of opinion.Your trigger-happy attitude toward criticizing those who have a different approach will lead you to burning more bridges. Not everyone shares every single one of your opinions.Even though you claim to follow the scientific method, your approach in considering the opinion of others seems to have become very dogmatic and overzealous. Not everything you discuss is incontrovertibly true. There are other perspectives to be considered and explored, and just because you don’t agree with them, does not mean there is a hidden agenda. Sincerely,MelI made 1 typo in my response…. From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….] Sent: 04 September 2017 08:58To: ‘Mel Fabregas’ Subject: RE: Your open letter… Hello,It isn’t an open letter I wrote. It’s an article documenting what you and Melanie Young said or implied about my deceased friend – who has no chance to respond to the lies you told about him, between you. I was so shocked, I couldn’t write to you. I note in your letter you offer to [should read “no”] corrections to my article – which is what I would expect as it is all true.You talk about “burning bridges” – if that stops me being connected to “islands of lies”, then burn they will.I am sorry to know you have chosen this path. I will only know you are “OK” again when you post my article, in full, on your website along with an apology – not to me – but to Lloyd Pye his family, and Amy.You might also acknowledge the problem of how disinformation works – when guests are allowed to lie and not be challenged – because hosts have paying customers to “please”. Andrew JohnsonI should have added that I can’t be held responsible for Veritas’ lack of ability to research the history of the Starchild Skull and establish “who said what and when.” To let lies be spoken is one thing, to encourage them to be spoken is another.The “Veritas” YouTube channel has also posted a video more recently:www.youtube.com/watc… this posting will help people to make decisions about where they place their support.      Melanie Young Correspondence – Sept 2017  On 21 Sept, Melanie Young wrote to me saying  Andrew  I wish you would have an honest dialogue with me instead of chastising me publicly. I have no problem having an open debate with you but not allowing me address your attacks is just not fair to Lloyd or the starchild.  I posted on your sight Check the evidence and received an email stated that it was posted. But I can’t find it. I may not understand how your site works.   I thought we had a good relationship. I’m sorry that changed. You still have my utmost respect. I wish you the best.  Respectfully,  Melanie  You can have a look at the rest of the correspondence by clicking here. I offered to post her comments on the website, although she offered no corrections to the article above and no explanations for her actions. She did “beg me for help” but did not explain what help she wanted or what help thought I could give. Did she want me to help her pronounce that the skull was that of a human child? (She confirmed the Starchild Skull is still in her possession.)  Now that Melanie Young herself has become a debunker, it is the best possible outcome for the secret-keepers. Also, another irony can be observed – Melanie Young talks at some length about her “alien hybrid children” (that she’s never met). Yet the skull she possesses, examined and tested by many different experts and never shown to be entirely human, is not, according to her, unusual at all. i.e. her alien children are real, but there’s no proof of aliens… Is it any wonder research in this field does not progress…?2017 Nuclear DNA TestsAlso in Sept 2017. Chase Kloetzke was interviewed by Martin Willis for the UFOPodcast programme.  http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/27%20Sep%202017%20-%20Podcast%20UFO%20-%20Martin%20Willis%20-%20Chase%20Kloetzke%20UFO%20Investigations%20Starchild%20Skull.mp3  Listening from 40 minutes, it appeared she was doing “a muddle up” – jumping between accounts of Steven Greer’s Atacama Alien and Starchild. Greer’s “Sirius” film does not really say it’s alien or human – it leaves it in doubt). There is some interesting and useful dialogue with Dr Gary Nolan on this page. He strongly implies the Atacama creature is indeed human. He mentions meeting Lloyd Pye too (this meeting happened in Sept 2012). Nolan plays down the Starchild Skull’s physical and bone anomalies, however.  Kloetzke’s briefly mentioned that a new Nuclear DNA test had been done by a Lab in 2017 which “proved” the DNA was human. Closer inspection reveals that this is not quite true. Here is what the report actually says, on pages 3-4.  The combination of replication, procedures in place for laboratory sterilization and elimination of Paleo-DNA Laboratory DNA profiles suggest the results are authentic and not contamination. However, no modern comparison samples were submitted with this batch from the archaeologists or any other individual who may have handled the sample and potentially contaminated it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that these profiles are authentic and not a previous handler.  Kloetzke also reported that the sample was given to the lab “blind” and so they did not use any special recovery techniques. This article in Nature implies that ancient DNA is at least 400 years old (Lloyd Pye said that Ancient DNA was anything older than 50 years). The Starchild’s DNA, according to repeated Carbon 14 dating tests was 900 years old. Hence, it is highly likely that recovery techniques used in the latest test, didn’t actually recover the Starchild’s Nuclear DNA – they recovered other DNA. The test sounds  quite similar to the Bold Lab test done in 1999 where they claimed to have proved the skull was from a human male child. The report is brief and contains no images, for example.  I wrote to the lab to ask how much DNA was recovered – they kindly wrote back to me thus:  The 23 markers attempted in the report make up a very small percentage of the genome.  I can’t be certain of the percentage.  They are commonly used in human identification and paternal ancestry.  Our recovery techniques are the same with all of our samples no matter the age.  The goal of DNA extraction is to maximize how much DNA you can get from a sample.  Age plays a part but the level of preservation of a sample plays an even larger part.  So, as Lloyd Pye said repeatedly, to prove the case fully, a full genome would need to be recovered – and it seems the previous (anonymous) geneticist might have been able to do this if funds have been available. Kloetzke did not make it clear that only a tiny percentage of the DNA had been recovered.  A number of incorrect or false statements were made in the Chase Kloetzke interview, for example at around 49:20, the host states the Starchild skull was “elongated” (it was not). Kloetzke nods and smiles and does not correct the host. At about 51:03, Kloetzke states that Lloyd was given fake evidence by experts. However, she does not name the experts nor does the describe the “fake evidence”. She also references the data/report on the FoxP2 gene which was revealed in 2012 and she describes these (51:55) as “not real science lab graphs – they’re photoshop graphs.” (My understanding is that the FoxP2 results these were screenshots emailed to Lloyd by the geneticist.) Kloetzke then proceeds to cast doubt on the anonymous geneticist’s credentials and even describes him as a “foreign national!”  At 53:00, referring to the Fox P2 gene research she says “geneticists don’t even talk like that.” This is essentially a flat out lie, as can be found here:  FOXP2 geneforkhead box P2  The FOXP2 gene provides instructions for making a protein called forkhead box P2. This protein is a transcription factor, which means that it controls the activity of other genes. It attaches (binds) to the DNA of these genes through a region known as a forkhead domain. Researchers suspect that the forkhead box P2 protein may regulate hundreds of genes, although only some of its targets have been identified.  The forkhead box P2 protein is active in several tissues, including the brain, both before and after birth. Studies suggest that it plays important roles in brain development, including the growth of nerve cells (neurons) and the transmission of signals between them. It is also involved in synaptic plasticity, which is the ability of connections between neurons (synapses) to change and adapt to experience over time. Synaptic plasticity is necessary for learning and memory.  The forkhead box P2 protein appears to be essential for the normal development of speech and language. Researchers are working to identify the genes regulated by forkhead box P2 that are critical for learning these skills.  This is exactly as Lloyd Pye described in his lectures and presentations. So, who should we believe? It seems sensible to point out here, that as Kloetzke is attempting to debunk this evidence, it is very likely that it is exactly the sort of evidence Lloyd Pye said it was – that this skull was from a being that was not even remotely human.  In order to try and make sure an audience had chance to get a more accurate picture, I wrote to the Podcast UFO website – which is referenced in the Kloetzke Interview. Here is the message I sent.  Dear Sir/Madam  I notice you recently had Chase Kloetzke on your programme talking  about the Starchild Skull.  I know quite a bit about the background to the skull and the lies that  have been told about it. I have documented this thoroughly in an  article I posted in March 2017.  I would like the opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions about  the matter and therefore would like to offer myself as a future guest  on your programme.  I can also advise you of other important UFO related evidence which  few people will talk about.  Thanks for your time.  Andrew Johnson www.checktheevidence…    The response I got back from Martin Willis was as follows.  Hi Andrew,  I am all set and want to move on to other topics.  Thank you,  Martin