It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TerryDon79
Just shows that now days dna sampling is much cheaper and someone in the business should check it out.
One should have extreme concerns when the claim is made that the only way to prove alien dna is to compare it to alien dna. That is a nonstarter and it drives logic to the ditch. Really you want me to catch another alien to show you the starchild is alien? Then just rinse and repeat.
I do not trust debunkers at all.
I have very personal experience with doing things that debunkers claim very intelligently is impossible and they went to great lengths to show how something was faked except I myself repeated the test and found that it is totally possible and easy to do.
originally posted by: draknoir2
You cannot use a test that compares DNA samples to known genomes to prove a match to hypothetical DNA any more than you can look at a skull and declare a match to a hypothetical alien species.
It's beyond me how so many here just don't get that.
Don't want to, more likely.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: draknoir2
You cannot use a test that compares DNA samples to known genomes to prove a match to hypothetical DNA any more than you can look at a skull and declare a match to a hypothetical alien species.
It's beyond me how so many here just don't get that.
Don't want to, more likely.
No Drac...its because your logic is broken. Nobody is talking about a match to a hypothetical, they are talking about the absence of a match to anything known. Logically, that is a match to an "abstract unknown".
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: tanka418
they are talking about the absence of a match to anything known.
But it does match the known, it matches humans!
originally posted by: tanka418
She is a D V M: a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
And, I do believe that would be sufficient qualification for the job of geneticist, depending of course on any extra course work she may have done.
You need to get a few Ducks!
originally posted by: deadeyedick
Have any credible dna companies offered to analyze the skull?
I have always heard that the people were wanting donations for testing.
originally posted by: tanka418
Come on y'all; I've shown how the mtDNA isn't Human, and asked that one of you show how it does match Human. You haven't done that yet...is it possible that you can't?
” The sample taken from the Starchild Skull (SCS-1) has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone.”
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
2003 Trace Genetics, handpicked and paid by Pye himself because of how professional they are.
” The sample taken from the Starchild Skull (SCS-1) has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone.”
I have shown the mtDNA is human. What lab said otherwise?
originally posted by: tanka418
You are using obsolete data, thus you haven't shown anything.
You don't get to ask about the lab. However, the results I refer to are the 2011 results. Which very clearly show there are too many nucleotide differences in the mtDNA for it to be Human.
Gohd, we have been over this several times, and y'all just refuse to acknowledge the most recent data. Using the old data causes exceptions to be thrown, and invalidates any result you may think you have.
Meanwhile, I've ask repeatedly that you show, using current data, "HOW" this very same DNA is Human...you haven't yet. I'm beginning to think that you can't.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What makes it obsolete?
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What makes it obsolete?
It is obsolete as it does not agree with the result tanka or Pye wanted.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What makes it obsolete?
Actually I do. I get to ask in order to determine the veracity of the results. I already posted and sourced that it can be human. That is why the geneticist and their credentials and the lab are important. The conclusion made about the data is false, and I proved and sourced it. So, what are the credentials of the geneticist and the lab involved?
"I've ask repeatedly that you show, using current data, "HOW" this very same DNA is Human...you haven't yet. I'm beginning to think that you can't."
I already sourced that. What data was obtained by an accredited lab and a geneticist with credentials after 2003? Why can't you answer? If the people have no clue what they are doing then nothing they say can be trusted, don't you agree?
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What makes it obsolete?
It is obsolete as it does not agree with the result tanka or Pye wanted.
originally posted by: tanka418
That data is from 2003, there are 2011 results. Thus, your 2003 data is obsolete and superseded.
No sir; I do not have to answer to hypocrisy!
Do you remember that little bit where you and all the other "skeptics" here condemned Dr. Ketchum? You know where a "respected", "top notch" DNA lab tested her stuff, and found vastly different results?
You do not have the identity of either that lab or geneticist. And yet you maintain its truth and reality.
No actually you haven't...nowhere have any of you posted any real data, or anything based on the available data. All you have posted has been opinion. And that based on obsolete data.
originally posted by: tanka418
No...it is obsolete because there is newer data...this newer data replaced the old, making the old obsolete.