Starchild Skull and Hominoids 12 of 12

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn ...why type so?!? ...people are entitled to listen to whatever they choose ...as far I could tell everyone who chose to contribute spoke respectfully...

to your allegation regarding science ...well ...I found it totally outside of any scientic consideration I've ever heard

just a thought

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale Is it possible that the people who believe this have absolutely no education in science and wouldn't know how to read research publications if their lives depended upon it?? This is just so pathetic. It is scary to think that so many people believe garbage because it sounds "sciency", but they just don't see that unless the actual findings are published in a credible scientific journal, then 10 years old claims amounts to NOTHING but money in his pocket from selling books. PUBLICATION?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn thanks for getting back to me so quickly ...clearly we think differently

that aside ...I have yet to meet a person who believes anything " because it sounds "sciency"," ...I stand by my "as far I could tell everyone who chose to contribute spoke respectfully" ...It was refreshing to listen to people who are so passionate ...so committed ...I can believe differently yet appreciate that others have their perspective based on their own research

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale It has nothing to do with whether you and I "think differently", but whether there is science to support this assertion. I suggest to you that 99.9% of the people on YT do in fact, believe what they read when it "sounds sciency" without having any education in science to discriminate. Yes, people can be "passionate" and "commited", as well as "dishonest" and "delusional". How can you know which? Do you actually have any idea of what"research" means, in scientific terms?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn I do know that scientfic well researched assertions/theory comes out of clear, open, yet precise observation of evidence ...when I read your words I question your 'assertions' about people ...I share my opinion rather than make judgements of others which why I made the claim "clearly we think differently" ...and my dear Sir, thinking is basic to any sharing of opinion ,,,scientific or otherwise

that we "think differently" is a given simply because we are human

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale Let me put it this way. I do not think that you know anything about science, or how scientific research is conducted. I am not terribly interested in veering off into sociological debate, but simply on the very focussed idea of someone making claims that are not supported by science and yet string people along for years and years purely to make profit. That we "think differently" is based on making use of a skill set by virtue of education. How does one "think differently" otherwise?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn When I read your reply I understand that you 'do think' and that you are "terribly interested in veering off into sociological debate" even thought claim otherwise ...your reply is the evidence ...the evidence is the truth

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale Why do you talk only in rhetoric? Can't you speak in straight-forward sentences that contain something substantive rather than nonsensical convolutions? The discussion is about what this clown is selling to gullible, undecuated people just like you, who don't know what science is, nor what research entails, and instead, believe (yup) the 'sciency' sounding words. I am questioning why, without a stitch of evidence, this skull was sold as "alien". Where is the science in that?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn once more ...I read that you question your own assertions and use 'nots' ...I certainly do "speak (in this case type) in straight-forward sentences that contain something substantive' ...it is you who claim otherwise ...this discussion (albeit virtual) as you describe it has gone completely sideways from my innocent "...why type so?!?"

"this skull was sold as exhibiting remarkable characteristics and perhaps it is evidence of "alien" visitation..."

one theory among many

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale In science, theories are put forward based on evidence and then built upon. Where is the evidence that this skull is "alien" in any sense of the word? Please just stick to a focussed discussion instead of the rhetoric. What science supports this assertion?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn Exactly! ...I have yet to see the skull but the skull's characteristics evidently exhibit some remarkable characteristics ...you admit that there is theory in science ...I agree ...that some think there is evidence to pose a theory is at least a beginning of a scientific research. ....absolutely on topic

please consider this: if Pye has the idea that there are characteristics that are worthy of further investigation who are you to namecall and discredit?

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale How do you know anything about this skull, except that which you have read and believed from a single source--the person standing to make a profit from selling people on his claims?? You have no other source than what Pye claims and without any education in science, you lack the skill set with which to see through the nonsense that makes use of a few choice words. Bottom line is that you, just like the vast majority of YT viewers, have no idea what to make of this one way or the other.

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale What have you said that has anything "substantive" to do with why you would comment underneath this video? You have not addressed the unsubstantiated claims made for over 10 years, that this skull is "alien". There is no evidence of this in any scientific sense, only uneducated people repeating nonsense that they believe after reading from someone's personal website. How can anyone consider a theory without any evidence??? Why not consider that the skull was simply of a deformed child?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn again ...I asked an innocent question of you, the source, a source btw already flagged as spam ...in reply you made and continue to make allegations absolutely outside of "anything to do with 'substantive' in the scientific sense" regarding Pye and his 'theory ...more over you made and are still making theories/assessments of any who had or would listen

to "How can .....any evidence???" ...reading your replies.. you do

to "Why...consider ... child?" evidence points otherwise

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale With due respect, people 'flag' other people as spam for the only reason that they do not agree with what the person said. Is it possible that you cannot focus on the fact that there has never been provided a single word of evidence published in any credible format and it is only people just like you, without any science education, who pay enough heed to cranks like Pye to enable them to continue on....? Can you actually finsih a sentence and stick to actually addressing this?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn Yes, I can (i think you meant) 'finish' a sentence. I'm done. ...two in the reply ;-])

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale Unfortunately, you never once wrote anything that had anything to do with the topic. Now that is truly a politician in the making--use many words but never commit to dealing with the issues.....Too funny. Let me know if you ever want to chat about science. Try UBC for a good place to begin your education.

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale Just to provide an addendum. Your first sentence should have been followed up with a logical conclusion, yet you then follow it with a narrative that has me at its centre piece. The issue is not about me, but about someone taking advantage of others by using 'sciency'-sounding words that are not understood, nor scrutinized. I am not taking people's money by making outrageous claims that have never been demonstrated using scientific methods. Focus not on me, but on the charlatan.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn my first sentence was followed by logic ...and when you claim "narrative" at least be honest ...clearly 'thinking' was "at its centre piece" ...I have stayed on topic ...respectfully so

I thought you would see that it is possible to discuss ideas free of name calling ...evidently, in this discussion, I am the only one who thinks so

that aside ...thank-you for sharing your opinion ...I'm clear now as to 'why' you typed as you did :-])

[rehsab01]

Why no "scientific peer review"? Check this: watch?v=ePUy4npHOmQ

Simply said, due to current dogmatic science policies will not touch highly extraordinary (or "controversial") subjects.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn I listen to the entire 12 parts ...I was fascinated ...I consider myself open minded moreover I respect everyone's right to 'freedom of speech' ...regarding "any evidence presented in a single scientific journal" far be it for me to claim I could ever read even half of the scientic reseach pertaining to this topic of interest

I appreciated being able to access this 'story' on YT

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale What you can "access" is unfiltered nonsense that unless you have the education to understand the science, you are part of the gullible audience that this guy (and people like him) who sells books to and asks donations of. Not a single stitich of science in this crap. This clown has been peddling this for over 10 years now without ever publishing his findings in a credible scientific journal. The reason is because this is rubbish and he is stringing the ignorant along.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn I just saw this reply ...once again I'm reading a 'narrative' as you call it that is punctuated by name calling so I'll leave you to it...

peace

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale I think you are imagining something, because there is no name-calling. If you don't have the education to discuss, then fair enough. You would be amongst the 99.9% of the YT folk who fall into that category and who, as a consequence, believe this nonsense. Peace to you as well.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn yes ...MY comments ARE free of name calling ...feel free to read the evidence ...my evidence is also free of assumption, accusation and projection ...I'm curious do you actually read your own typed messages? ...a purely rhetorical question, of course

you do realize that your assertions contradict themselves ...everyone of your contributions to our 'virtual' djscussion have 'nots' in them

there is little actual evidence to support your 99.9% claim

thank-you

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale You have yet to discuss the actual topic. Do you understand what parsimony refers to? At least if you are going to write, then make a few words count for something. Try to apply yourself using the science that is supposed to support the claims made by this person and by extension, what you might wish to focus on .... Can you do this?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn I have generously engaged in this v. discussion ...why do allege otherwise? ...apparently it is you who have yet to... dare I point out once again that I innocently questioned your manner of typing your opinion regarding "science"

Yes, I understand the word 'parsimony' ...I also understand that you are using it here for the first time

Feel free to "Try to apply yourself using the science that is supposed to support your own claims"

Yes ..."Can you?"

Bravo! ...'not' free!

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale If you understand the meaning of parsimony, then why not apply its use to your discussion? You have used sentnece agter sentennce and you have yet to actually touch on what constitutes "evidence" in science. Where is the "evidence" that supports the notion that this skull has anything to do with "aliens"? The reason that you cannot discuss Pye's claims is simply because you do not know how to. You are amongst the vast majority of YT viewers who have absolutely no science education.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn I did ...feel free to apply parsimony yourself ...I think you mean "sentence after sentence"

I have responded strictly to the 'evidence'

I have done my part to discuss Pye's theories ...you, on the other hand, have alleged/claimed beyond scientific evidence

if you wish to continue believing that adequate science education is exclusive then so be it

I'm done

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale You have not referred once to what "evidence" there is or is not. Do you know? Be direct and kindly provide evidence that would be considered by anyone in science to validate such a theory. Given that no one outside of Pye's claim is available to comment on direct observations made, you seem very willing to believe what Pye tells you he want you to believe. Try that degree from UBC.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn I typed I read; I listened; and I reserved judgement I gave you fair notice and now I'm following through.

I'm done.

thanks ;-])

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale When you write, "feel free to read the evidence", which "evidence is it that you are referring to? I am not sure if you really know what you are talking about in terms of this topic. Do you have any education in science at all? Can you stick to the claims made by this individual and how the lack of evidence should not be covered over by using the lexicon of science.

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn ...our discussion is the evidence to which I am referring

if you read our discussion you COULD be sure ...my part is abundantly clear

Of course I do! ...as does everyone on this planet ...one only has to observe a baby to realize that every gain on every level is brought about by PURE scientific research..."lexicon of science"/wordsmithing totally aside

I know I CAN stick to my own claims ...I can listen to others (Pye and you for that matter) reserving judgement

Can you? ... 

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale You need to use far fewer words and say far more. I reserve judgement until there is sufficient cause for me to commit to a conclusion. When someone spends over ten years making claims without any evidence, and presupposes that this skull is of alien origin even to the extent of naming it "Starchild Skull", then of course any rational person would start to question the motives of that person. Selling books and asking for donations is all I see. Perhaps you can share otherwise?

[gaiagale]

@TheSkepticUn Oh my! ...and you know what I 'need'... how exactly? ...please ...feel free to consider the question rhetorical ;-])

reading your responses has been an interesting exercise however I'm pretty much convinced by the 'evidence' that it is time for me to let the typing and subsequent reading be...

although ...in reading this reply I see that it is 'not' free and almost 'question' free

a "rational person" could consider the source and simply 'let it be'

[TheSkepticUn]

@gaiagale Try an undergrad degree in science at UBC to begin with.

[VonHelton]

I WAS RIGHT!

watch?v=Ei_gq7Z8yX4

[royalexander009]

The Star Child was a Simese TWIN>......

[PeyoteWereWolf]

They obviously have a long standing friendship and working relationship if you were listening to the beginning and George even ask Lloyd to appear on his TV show if it happens so obviously

that ending was due to time being OVER.

Outstanding program I am ordering the book tonight.

[amishmix]

That was a rather abrupt ending, but I think time was not on their side.....aby way, great show!

[MrDuffy81]

What a rude good bye George gives to Lloyd.

Very hasty...

"Keep in touch", as in, 'call us, cuz we won't be calling you.'