Re: Gli extraterrestri non esistono!
Inviato da polaris il 4/10/2015 13:02:49
Sertes
Citazione:Questa è un'affermazione che risale all'aprile del 2013, mentre già nel giugno dello stesso anno a Nolan venne posta questa domanda:
But according to you and your colleague Dr. Ralph Lachman (who is a respected authority on skeletal dysplasias), the original being did live up to an age of 6-8 years and could therefore not be explained as being the mummy of an early aborted foetus suffering from some kind of progeroid syndrome?
Nolan: First it would be wrong to interpret that either Dr. Lachman or I "concluded" anything about the age of the specimen.[...]My early statement on camera that this (being) might have been eating, breathing and living is no longer a conclusion I feel strongly about. Dr. Lachman never said that, so it would be incorrect to broadly include him in what I (personally) stated tentatively. I repeat - the tenet and basis of the documentary approach was to hear me "speculate" - not conclude.
Nel documentario si volevano sentire supposizioni, non conclusioni, perché non sono sorpreso?
Continua Nolan:Even at the time of the "last interview" in the documentary we only thought the specimen's bones "appeared" to suggest an older specimen than the size would lead one to believe.
The bone results are the only thing right now that suggests it is older. “Suggest” does not equal “prove”. That the bone epiphyses are “apparently” 6-8 years does not “prove” it was 6-8 years. It just makes the question worth answering as to “why” the bones look older. Is it an artifact of the mummification or drying process? Some new form of rapid aging? I don’t know and I suspect we won’t ever truly know without a lot more work. And I am not sure the specimen, at the end of the day, is worth that much more worry and scrutiny.
Fonte
In una mail del 2014, Nolan afferma riguardo il DNA:
As to the utility of DNA I am ambivalent. It’s so easy to contaminate DNA or misinterpret the results. I worry about this being done in the hands of other people who start out with a conclusion and interpret everything in the context of that conclusion. What do we learn then? You can’t be "just a skeptic", but you also can’t start with a predetermined belief.
As to the general application of how to use DNA forensic evidence for exploration of claimed sightings, skeletons, or interactions – buyer beware. It is so easy to be tricked by DNA analysis that it does need the hands of people with the right experience to get it technically correct. And the computation required is not "desktop" — you have to be able to access databases of human allelic variants, ethnic variation in DNA, etc. to be able to put results in context.
Fonte
In ogni caso le analisi sono incomplete e il famoso peer-reviewed paper che Nolan aveva promesso di pubblicare riguardo l'umanoide non si è ancora visto.
Quindi ogni conclusione è prematura e dettata unicamente dall'eccessivo entusiasmo.
Chissà se in futuro sentiremo ancora parlare dell'umanoide di Atacama.
Citazione:
Il corpicino di un umano di 6-8 anni d'età.
But according to you and your colleague Dr. Ralph Lachman (who is a respected authority on skeletal dysplasias), the original being did live up to an age of 6-8 years and could therefore not be explained as being the mummy of an early aborted foetus suffering from some kind of progeroid syndrome?
Nolan: First it would be wrong to interpret that either Dr. Lachman or I "concluded" anything about the age of the specimen.[...]My early statement on camera that this (being) might have been eating, breathing and living is no longer a conclusion I feel strongly about. Dr. Lachman never said that, so it would be incorrect to broadly include him in what I (personally) stated tentatively. I repeat - the tenet and basis of the documentary approach was to hear me "speculate" - not conclude.
Nel documentario si volevano sentire supposizioni, non conclusioni, perché non sono sorpreso?
Continua Nolan:Even at the time of the "last interview" in the documentary we only thought the specimen's bones "appeared" to suggest an older specimen than the size would lead one to believe.
The bone results are the only thing right now that suggests it is older. “Suggest” does not equal “prove”. That the bone epiphyses are “apparently” 6-8 years does not “prove” it was 6-8 years. It just makes the question worth answering as to “why” the bones look older. Is it an artifact of the mummification or drying process? Some new form of rapid aging? I don’t know and I suspect we won’t ever truly know without a lot more work. And I am not sure the specimen, at the end of the day, is worth that much more worry and scrutiny.
Fonte
In una mail del 2014, Nolan afferma riguardo il DNA:
As to the utility of DNA I am ambivalent. It’s so easy to contaminate DNA or misinterpret the results. I worry about this being done in the hands of other people who start out with a conclusion and interpret everything in the context of that conclusion. What do we learn then? You can’t be "just a skeptic", but you also can’t start with a predetermined belief.
As to the general application of how to use DNA forensic evidence for exploration of claimed sightings, skeletons, or interactions – buyer beware. It is so easy to be tricked by DNA analysis that it does need the hands of people with the right experience to get it technically correct. And the computation required is not "desktop" — you have to be able to access databases of human allelic variants, ethnic variation in DNA, etc. to be able to put results in context.
Fonte
In ogni caso le analisi sono incomplete e il famoso peer-reviewed paper che Nolan aveva promesso di pubblicare riguardo l'umanoide non si è ancora visto.
Quindi ogni conclusione è prematura e dettata unicamente dall'eccessivo entusiasmo.
Chissà se in futuro sentiremo ancora parlare dell'umanoide di Atacama.
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=51&topic_id=7856&post_id=281995