Archive for the ‘UFO alien misidentification’ Category
Think about the title to this post. It doesn’t assert that all or even most UFO witnesses are liars. It doesn’t say they are cranks, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or otherwise buffoonish. In my experience, people who report UFOs are anything but. What the title does suggest, however, is that reports, even detailed ones, really cannot be deemed as evidence that what is seen is in fact extraterrestrial. In principle that may be the case, but that determination must be made on other grounds.
Why? Because of the high potential for mis-identification and the inclusion of mistaken details. For more, check out this episode of the Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast!
I’ve occasionally blogged about Stuart Robbins’ podcast, Exposing PseudoAstronomy. Stuart has invited me for an interview. It will take place in November, but I’ll let you all know when he actually posts it.
Stuart has done excellent (and time-consuming) work exposing lots of nonsense. His show deserves a plug. Here’s a list of his episodes (drawn from his archive) on some of the ET conspiracy ideas related to the moon, Mars, and those alien bases NASA is keeping a secret!
Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy
- Heat and Radiation Claims of the Apollo Moon Hoax (Episode 5)
- Dust and Rock Claims of the Apollo Moon Hoax (Episode 11)
- Photography Claims of the Apollo Moon Hoax, Part 1 (Episode 31)
- Photography Claims of the Apollo Moon Hoax, Part 2 (Episode 35)
- Photography Claims of the Apollo Moon Hoax, Part 3 (Episode 56)
- Independent Evidence the Apollo Moon Landings Were Real (Episode 44)
Anomalies and Images
- John Lear (Episode 19)
- Image Processing and Anomalies, Part 1 (Episode 47)
- Image Processing and Anomalies, Part 2 (Episode 48)
- The Face on Mars, Part 1 (Episode 59, cross-listed under Richard C. Hoagland)
- The Face on Mars, Part 2 (Episode 60, cross-listed under Richard C. Hoagland)
- José Escamilla’s Movie “Celestial” (Episode 65)
- Solar System Mysteries “Solved” by PseudoScience, Part 1 – Iapetus (Episode 72, cross-listed under Richard C. Hoagland)
- Image Analysis for Skeptics: From Faces to Pyramids (Live Talk) (Episode 73)
- The Giza Pyramid / Orion Correlation (Episode 34)
- The True Story of Planet X (Episode 13)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 1 (Zecharia Sitchin) (Episode 23)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 2 (Gilbert Eriksen’s Wormwood) (Episode 28)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 3 (The Myth of the Southern Approach)(Episode 43)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 4 (Nancy Lieder) (Episode 51, cross-listed under UFO)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 5 (IRAS Discovery in 1983) (Episode 54)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 6 – Andy Lloyd’s “Dark Star” (Episode 71)
- The Fake Story of Planet X, Part 7 – Mark Hazlewood (Episode 80)
- You Can’t Know the Distance, Size, and Speed of UFOs (Episode 2)
- Interview About the Billy Meier UFO Case with Derek Bartholomaus (Episode 32)
- Billy Meier, Michael Horn, and Asteroid Apophis (Episode 49)
- The Mystery of Phobos 2 (Episode 52)
- Investigation into Billy Meier’s Alleged Foreknowledge About Jupiter and Saturn(Episode 90)
I recently received this URL from someone asking me to take a look – it’s a site about the NASA cover-up of alien bases on the moon. Familiar conspiracy silliness, new source (for me anyway).
The URL gives me the opportunity to direct readers to a blog that I follow called “The Emoluments of Mars,” written by someone (Expat) who has a deep knowledge of spaceflight, NASA photographs, and photographic analysis.
Basically, “Expat” is the “anti-Hoagland”. He’s intimately familiar with all of what Richard Hoagland, Mike Bara, and Ken Johnston have written and said to prop up the idea of alien base / artificial structures on the moon and Mars. News flash: there are piles of problems with their use/abuse of images, analysis, and thought processes. Since I have no knowledge of such things, Expat’s blog is a wonderful resource to get critical evaluation of these claims. It’s great knowing there are experts in such fields that bother to get involved (akin to my geneticist friend to whom I regularly send “alien DNA” hokum for expert opinion).
I decided to send the URL I received to Expat to see if he’d comment (I did so in the comments to one of his posts). He replied:
No, I hadn’t seen that page before, but I face-palmed as soon as I read this:
“photos revealing artifacts and structures are routinely modified by NASA higher-ups.”
DarkGovernment.com [the source of the photos at the aforementioned URL - MSH] doesn’t know what it’s writing about. As I’ve often mentioned on this blog, all data processing for Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is done at the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State Univ. “NASA high-ups” don’t even get to see it until the processing is done.
Use Google advanced search to pull out everything I’ve written about Ken Johnston, and you’ll read my opinion of him. Someone who claims expertise in NASA photography, and says the blue flare in AS14-66-9301 is a spaceship, IS NOT a reliable source.
So there you go, alien conspiracy fans – take Expat up on the search for a taste of what he does. Better yet, follow his blog!
If you’ve been reading the comments to the posts I’ve written about Steven Greer’s alleged six-inch alien specimen, you’ll notice that several folks have presumed that the 9% unidentified DNA means the specimen is alien or an alien-human hybrid.
That isn’t the case. But since I’m no expert in genetics, I asked a friend who is to comment on that issue. (He has a PhD in biochemistry and an expertise in genetics and bioinformatics). He’s kindly obliged.
Here’s an excerpt from my email to him of a couple days ago and his response:
MSH: The discussion of this anomaly is ongoing. . . . The sticking point for many readers is the notion that 9% of the DNA cannot be identified. Many jump to the conclusion that this means the specimen is 9% alien. . . . The Stanford researcher who did the analysis says that the DNA he examined was not contaminated. You’d told me before (in relation to another “alien hybrid” specimen) that such inability to identify DNA is because (as memory serves) parts of the genome being examined don’t show up in a registry of some kind. Could you give me a paragraph (for non-specialists) as to how you would explain why DNA can’t be identified in DNA tests?
“9% unidentified” and “9% different” are two completely different comparisons. They’re not even related.
9% different is based on alignments. Comparing two sequences together requires a an alignment – where we can say for certain that some percentage of nucleotides in the complete alignment don’t match. Like so:
In the second sequence there’s a G that’s different from the C in the first sequence, but I know that’s the difference because it’s surrounded by matching nucleotides. There’s no funny business going on, it’s a genuine sequence mismatch – a real difference.
“9% unidentified” means there’s no alignment. So we have to ask, why is there no alignment? There can be a whole host of answers to that. It could be a sequence of human DNA that’s not been sequenced before (unlikely but it could happen), so it’s not in the database. That could happen in the case of local insertional variations. It could be poor quality sequence – DNA that the sequencing machine just didn’t read correctly. It could be chimeric sequence – where two pieces are stuck together that aren’t connected in the actual chromosome, so they don’t match the correct sequences in the database.
Most likely, it’s fungal and bacterial contamination that’s not in the database. At 9%, that would be the most likely explanation. If they say there’s no contamination, that’s because they don’t understand contamination. The vast majority of forensic DNA (including aDNA) that gets sequenced is contamination. It’s impossible not to get contamination from aDNA extractions.