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.

 

The Starchild Skull

page: 15
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

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.



You're right. That is a non starter.

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.




posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
It's a news story, dumbass, not a scientific publication.



And yet, y'all hold it up AS IF it had some sort of scientific authority.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

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".



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

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".


Logically, since what does match is human, in the absence of a match to anything else...


It's called the Starchild project for a reason. Now you're just pretending.

Tell me more about those Pleiadian humans.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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!



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

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!


@Dracnoir2:

Yes, I suppose it does sort of match Human, kind of like Chimpanzee matches Human.


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?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   

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!


Simple typo.

So now prove she has the extra courses. As I said, she doesn't. You just agreed with me she is unqualified.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Did you mean this?

Harte


And this is as sloppy a debunk as y'all are claiming Ketchum is...its BS!


What is sloppy about it? Since you did not list anything sloppy one must assume it's not.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

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.

In 1999 and 2003 it was analyzed by reputable labs Pye handpicked. Both labs concluded the skull belonged to a 100% human male. Pye then refused to let any more labs look at it and hired a secret geneticist (with no credentials or schooling in the field) to give the answers he wanted.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

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?


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?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Starchild is a hybrid human-ET actually. It is more on the "human side" than "ET side" though.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: itanosam
Starchild is a hybrid human-ET actually. It is more on the "human side" than "ET side" though.

Based on?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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?


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.




edit on 28-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
You are using obsolete data, thus you haven't shown anything.

What makes it obsolete?


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.

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?


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.

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?

Kind of like ... you don't get to ask me about who did it or what lab. In 2015 it was determined by checking DNA this must be an Earth based human.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What makes it obsolete?


It is obsolete as it does not agree with the result tanka or Pye wanted.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

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.


Yes, I don't get it. So any prisoner convicted using DNA evidence should be released because it's obsolete now? I don't get it.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What makes it obsolete?



That data is from 2003, there are 2011 results. Thus, your 2003 data is obsolete and superseded.


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?


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.


"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?



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.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

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.



No...it is obsolete because there is newer data...this newer data replaced the old, making the old obsolete.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

That data is from 2003, there are 2011 results. Thus, your 2003 data is obsolete and superseded.

How about you explain why it's obsolete. What test showed the 2003 test was incorrect? What lab?


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.

Ketchum refused to let an actual geneticist take lead, did a crap paper, her first paper ever, could not get it published, and bought a journal just to publish that. There is no hypocrisy, only consistency. What are Ketchums CREDENTIALS? You already agreed she needs them, and can't produce them. By your own admission she is unqualified!


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.


Again, HOW is it invalidated. Be specific. What makes the 2003 data wrong?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

No...it is obsolete because there is newer data...this newer data replaced the old, making the old obsolete.


No. The new data has nothing to do with the old data. It's a completely different test and can not possibly invalidate the old results. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

It's like finding 2+2=4.
Then someone else finds 2x4=8

And you claim 2+2 no longer equals 4 because new data is out about 2x4.

Show me where the results obtained in 2003 are specifically called into question. Be specific, what test was done and how does it make the test in 2003 obsolete.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join