Bill Chalker,Alien,DNA,UFO,Abduction,Evidence,Peter Khoury Hair of the Alien

Hair of the Alien

posted by schmawy

1 month ago • 248 views

tags: Bill Chalker, Alien, DNA, UFO, Abduction, Evidence, Peter Khoury

L
O
N
G

comments (9)

embed

bookmarks (0)

playlists (0)

Stumble This

In 1992 an Australian man had strange sexual encounters with odd humanoid females. Bill Chalker Describes his book about DNA testing done on hair samples from the scene. 10:35

Related Amazon Items Added by Members - view all

▲

▼

Hair of the Alien: DNA and Other Forensic Evidence of Alien Abductions
Book added by: schmawy

GREAT DESIGNS FROM VIDEOSIFT'S T-SHIRT STORE
Support VideoSift - Buy a Shirt! Use coupon code SIFTFALL09 at checkout to save an additional 20% now!
Peanut Butter Cup Love	You Lie	I Heart Science Ambigram

Comments

Interview with my favorite open minded skeptics at The Paracast...

http://www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_091011.mp3

written by schmawy

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Oh have mercy Rembar's watching. Refreshing frequently to see if it makes the cut for the science channel. This is sort of like peer review.

written by schmawy

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Strange sexual encounters with odd humanoid females makes not an alien encounter....why, if I were to relate you my activities just this past Saturday....

*nochannel
*books
*downunder
*talks
*controversy

written by rembar

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, Books, Downunder, Talks, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Books, Controversy, Downunder, Talks) - requested by rembar.

written by siftbot

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Aw Rembar you're just saying it's not science because of your beliefs aren't you? Can science not be used in the investigation of paranormal claims?

written by schmawy

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 3 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I'm sure you expected me to make a stink, Rembar. First let me say I'm really happy you're back around rigourously reviewing science channel submissions, I have tried to work to that end in your stead.

That being said, the video I submitted seems to comply by the description of the channel where it states

Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate and in keeping with scientific thought.

So although this video is not strictly about science, it describes the use of scientific tools and methodology to investigate extraordinary claims. There are always cries for evidence whenever the paranormal is claimed, yet we're denied the use of science's process in trying to provide it?

Please set me straight less I think your personal biases are interfering with your channel administration!

written by schmawy

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Some rando yammering away for 10 minutes without any attempt to add credulity to his out-of-left-field claims using any evidence, hell, even other testimony, does not deserve time in the Science channel.

And yes, for the record I am biased due to a severe allergy to bullshit.

written by rembar

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 5 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Okay, so long as you admit it. Again, nice to have you back around Rembar.

written by schmawy

| 1 month ago | CH

▲ 3 ▼ | flag spam (0)