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: 16
49
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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No...it is obsolete because there is newer data...this newer data replaced the old, making the old obsolete.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


Your analogy is wholly incorrect!

Your faux ignorance is rather unbecoming.




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Been doing a lot of reading the past few hours. Eyes are gonna be square soon. But I did find some interesting things.

According to Pye himself he said the 1999 and 2003 results weren't accurate due to contamination. Now that surely has to make you wonder about the validity of the "most recent tests".

The genetisists that have done the 1999 and 2003 tests have been quoted on multiple sites saying that nuDNA erodes a lot quicker that mtDNA.

In 2009 (January I believe) Pye stated that it was extremely difficult to get consistent results with the nuDNA. So he says because of that it must be alien. That could be down to the erosion rate, contamination or both.

Ever since the skull was discovered it has always been in Pyes possession and never had an independent party do a DNA test.

One thing I did notice while reading everything, he actually agreed that the skull was a boy. Now a female human produces the xx chromosome. The male the xy. For him to conclude it was a boy must surely mean he concludes the father is a human as that is the only place we have been able to find the Y chromosome. Unless aliens have found a way to breed with humans or splice genetically. If that's the case then we won't learn the answer until we have alien DNA to compare the skull with.
edit on 292729/10/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.


Your analogy is wholly incorrect!

Your faux ignorance is rather unbecoming.



Then all you need to do is describe in detail what test is invalidated, and why the specific test you think invalidates it does so. If you can't do that, then you are by default conceding my point that you are wrong.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
One thing I did notice while reading everything, he actually agreed that the skull was a boy. Now a female human produces the xx chromosome. The male the xy. For him to conclude it was a boy must surely mean he concludes the father is a human as that is the only place we have been able to find the Y chromosome. Unless aliens have found a way to breed with humans or splice genetically. If that's the case then we won't learn the answer until we have alien DNA to compare the skull with.


All male mammals have "Y" DNA. Birds and insects have an equivalent.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Curious how 2003 and 1999 came to the same conclusions if both are wrong. 2003 test even discovered which haplogroup the skull belonged to.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
One thing I did notice while reading everything, he actually agreed that the skull was a boy. Now a female human produces the xx chromosome. The male the xy. For him to conclude it was a boy must surely mean he concludes the father is a human as that is the only place we have been able to find the Y chromosome. Unless aliens have found a way to breed with humans or splice genetically. If that's the case then we won't learn the answer until we have alien DNA to compare the skull with.


All male mammals have "Y" DNA. Birds and insects have an equivalent.

And none of them have the human Y chromosome. It's like taking a human foot and a cat foot and saying you can't tell me that foot is human, cats have a foot too so it could be a cat's foot.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
One thing I did notice while reading everything, he actually agreed that the skull was a boy. Now a female human produces the xx chromosome. The male the xy. For him to conclude it was a boy must surely mean he concludes the father is a human as that is the only place we have been able to find the Y chromosome. Unless aliens have found a way to breed with humans or splice genetically. If that's the case then we won't learn the answer until we have alien DNA to compare the skull with.


All male mammals have "Y" DNA. Birds and insects have an equivalent.


I completely agree. They all have an equivalent but, BIG BUT, not the same.

Just like apes have between 66% and 99% are genetically similar (depends on which study you want to believe. Figures taken from this article) doesn't mean we can breed with apes or vice versa.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.


Your analogy is wholly incorrect!

Your faux ignorance is rather unbecoming.



Then all you need to do is describe in detail what test is invalidated, and why the specific test you think invalidates it does so. If you can't do that, then you are by default conceding my point that you are wrong.


Sure, no problem. Right after you answer my challenge.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.


Your analogy is wholly incorrect!

Your faux ignorance is rather unbecoming.



Then all you need to do is describe in detail what test is invalidated, and why the specific test you think invalidates it does so. If you can't do that, then you are by default conceding my point that you are wrong.


Sure, no problem. Right after you answer my challenge.


I have no idea what your challenge is nor do I care. You made an assertion that the 2003 data was proven wrong. Assertions are meaningless, you need to back it up by detailing EXACTLY how it's proven wrong.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryDon79

Curious how 2003 and 1999 came to the same conclusions if both are wrong. 2003 test even discovered which haplogroup the skull belonged to.


It was haplogroup c female, but was found next to a haplogroup a female.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating what Pye said about contamination and how if he says that about the previous tests done how can he then say his newer test wasn't contaminated?

Just seems to me like he was one of those "yours is wrong because of contamination or inconsistent results or you scientists are just making up results due to peer pressure. But my results are right because..." but never gives a real answer.
edit on 295229/10/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 295129/10/1515 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
One thing I did notice while reading everything, he actually agreed that the skull was a boy. Now a female human produces the xx chromosome. The male the xy. For him to conclude it was a boy must surely mean he concludes the father is a human as that is the only place we have been able to find the Y chromosome. Unless aliens have found a way to breed with humans or splice genetically. If that's the case then we won't learn the answer until we have alien DNA to compare the skull with.


All male mammals have "Y" DNA. Birds and insects have an equivalent.


I completely agree. They all have an equivalent but, BIG BUT, not the same.

Just like apes have between 66% and 99% are genetically similar (depends on which study you want to believe. Figures taken from this article) doesn't mean we can breed with apes or vice versa.


No actually all mammals have an "X" chromosome and maybe a "Y" chromosome.

Did you know that IF you were to try to analyze Chimpanzee DNA with Human primers; it will seem to be Human, with rather odd allele counts...especially at the second and eleventh chromosomes. That's how close the Chimpanzee is.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
One thing I did notice while reading everything, he actually agreed that the skull was a boy. Now a female human produces the xx chromosome. The male the xy. For him to conclude it was a boy must surely mean he concludes the father is a human as that is the only place we have been able to find the Y chromosome. Unless aliens have found a way to breed with humans or splice genetically. If that's the case then we won't learn the answer until we have alien DNA to compare the skull with.


All male mammals have "Y" DNA. Birds and insects have an equivalent.


I completely agree. They all have an equivalent but, BIG BUT, not the same.

Just like apes have between 66% and 99% are genetically similar (depends on which study you want to believe. Figures taken from this article) doesn't mean we can breed with apes or vice versa.


No actually all mammals have an "X" chromosome and maybe a "Y" chromosome.

Did you know that IF you were to try to analyze Chimpanzee DNA with Human primers; it will seem to be Human, with rather odd allele counts...especially at the second and eleventh chromosomes. That's how close the Chimpanzee is.



And I don't understand how that has got anything to do with my post you quoted. Apart from DNA, obviously.

But you still wouldn't be able to get a female chimpanzee pregnant. No matter how hard you try.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I have no idea what your challenge is nor do I care. You made an assertion that the 2003 data was proven wrong. Assertions are meaningless, you need to back it up by detailing EXACTLY how it's proven wrong.


No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I have no idea what your challenge is nor do I care. You made an assertion that the 2003 data was proven wrong. Assertions are meaningless, you need to back it up by detailing EXACTLY how it's proven wrong.


No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.




All the differences in the mtDNA proves is that there are differences. It doesn't disprove the skull being human. Might be more than we've seen before, but doesn't mean it doesn't happen



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.



2003 data is proven. You need to prove it should not be used. Show why the new data is reliable, should be believed, and EXACTLY how it discredits the 2003 data. How is the 2003 data proven wrong?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I have no idea what your challenge is nor do I care. You made an assertion that the 2003 data was proven wrong. Assertions are meaningless, you need to back it up by detailing EXACTLY how it's proven wrong.


No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.




All the differences in the mtDNA proves is that there are differences. It doesn't disprove the skull being human. Might be more than we've seen before, but doesn't mean it doesn't happen


The starchild has some 800 - 1600+ differences in the mtDNA...in all of Humankind, all 7+ billion; there are 120(+/-) differences.

eta: I forgot to mention...Neanderthals had 200 such differences. Denisova has 328 or so, Chimpanzees have 1500...



edit on 29-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.



2003 data is proven. You need to prove it should not be used. Show why the new data is reliable, should be believed, and EXACTLY how it discredits the 2003 data. How is the 2003 data proven wrong?


Okay...firstly, please quit playing "dumb"!
Next: the newer data replaces the older. This is considered a "best practice" in data analysis, and it is only common sense.

And again; I didn't say the older data was proven wrong, that is all you pretending.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I have no idea what your challenge is nor do I care. You made an assertion that the 2003 data was proven wrong. Assertions are meaningless, you need to back it up by detailing EXACTLY how it's proven wrong.


No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.




All the differences in the mtDNA proves is that there are differences. It doesn't disprove the skull being human. Might be more than we've seen before, but doesn't mean it doesn't happen


The starchild has some 800 - 1600+ differences in the mtDNA...in all of Humankind, all 7+ billion; there are 120(+/-) differences.

eta: I forgot to mention...Neanderthals had 200 such differences. Denisova has 328 or so, Chimpanzees have 1500...



What percent of the mtDNA was looked at to come to that conclusion? Source it.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
No sir; I did not.

I said it was replaced with newer data.

And, IF you do not need to provide lab and geneticist information for discrediting Dr. Ketchum, then I don't have to provide that data to support my assertions.

And my challenge:
Using current available relevant data; prove the starchild skull to be Human.

I'll even give you a wee "boost"; you need to acknowledge and explain the large number of differences in the mtDNA.

You let me know when you can do that! I used those very differences to demonstrate the mtDNA is not Human.

And, IF you should decide, like the others, to maintain the attitude that I have to provide proof, but you do not. Then we are done, you fail.



2003 data is proven. You need to prove it should not be used. Show why the new data is reliable, should be believed, and EXACTLY how it discredits the 2003 data. How is the 2003 data proven wrong?


Okay...firstly, please quit playing "dumb"!
Next: the newer data replaces the older. This is considered a "best practice" in data analysis, and it is only common sense.

And again; I didn't say the older data was proven wrong, that is all you pretending.



No, it's not considered best practice. In fact, it's considered worst practice. You literally have no clue what you are talking about. "Best practice" is to keep the old data until it's proven wrong, something that was not done, and you can't do. Especially since there is no new data, there are ASSERTIONS, there is no actual data! If you think there is, give me the RAW DATA.




top topics



 
49
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join