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: 17
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:44 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.




I think you'll find yourself wrong there. Newer data does not replace older data. The way it actually works is the more right data replaces the less right data. How new some data is doesn't mean it is more right or more wrong. All it means is it is newer.




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Response to 2011 data.

“The gel photo provided on the website…could be of anything. It is a standard, generic picture. I have generated many similar ones in my work. All it is showing is that there is DNA present. One could estimate the size of the pieces from the DNA “ladder” standard in the far right lane, but only if one knew beforehand which ladder standard was used, although it would probably be easy to figure it out. Note also that DNA was not recovered directly from the ‘Starchild’ skull. An extract of genomic DNA would have made a smear, not discrete bands, and would have included very long pieces, not just the vague, dilute small stuff at the top of each column. These bands appear to have been generated by taking some DNA (from an unknown source) and running it through a PCR reaction that made millions of copies of tbe DNA. The fact that they got tight, definable bands tells me that they were using specific primers in this procedure. Thus, the DNA is of a known sequence! At least, the ends of the bands must be identical to the primers used.”

In response to this image.


That means the only way that image is possible, is if the DNA is of Earth origins, ie. Human.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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.




I think you'll find yourself wrong there. Newer data does not replace older data. The way it actually works is the more right data replaces the less right data. How new some data is doesn't mean it is more right or more wrong. All it means is it is newer.

Exactly. And by default, the older data is more right until the new data is PROVEN to be more right. Something Tanka can't do.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04No, 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.


Since we all about sources right now; do you have a source for this assertion.

And, please don't ask me for something you already know I don't have. And IF I did there would likely be an NDA associated.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04No, 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.


Since we all about sources right now; do you have a source for this assertion.

And, please don't ask me for something you already know I don't have. And IF I did there would likely be an NDA associated.


Sorry, but really?! You're asking for proof of there being no data?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

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...



Just because I know you will never answer ... they actually found 17 differences. The 800-1600 you claim is FANTASY.

the same length of Starchild mtDNA has 17 differences!

starchildproject.com...

What they did was to find a very small region (1% of the mtDNA) and then take those differences and multiply them. It's the equivalent of me asking 10 people a question and if 1 person says yes my claiming 10% of all Americans agree.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04No, 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.


Since we all about sources right now; do you have a source for this assertion.

And, please don't ask me for something you already know I don't have. And IF I did there would likely be an NDA associated.

So you make claims you can't back up. Guess what, the 1999 and 2003 data can be reviewed, wonder why this data that's 4 years old can't be. What we have are claims that can't be backed up, and on their face are proven to be fantasy creations of a hack job.

17 variations morphs into 1600. Why? Because why not, it sounds so much better!

There is NO data. Don't talk to me about 2011 DATA when you can't provide any actual DATA. What we have are 2011 fantasy CLAIMS, backed up by no data.
edit on 29-10-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

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...



Just because I know you will never answer ... they actually found 17 differences. The 800-1600 you claim is FANTASY.

the same length of Starchild mtDNA has 17 differences!

starchildproject.com...

What they did was to find a very small region (1% of the mtDNA) and then take those differences and multiply them. It's the equivalent of me asking 10 people a question and if 1 person says yes my claiming 10% of all Americans agree.


Absolutely amazing...do you see...on either side of the page, in large text the words "DENY IGNORANCE"...

Yes that valuewas obtained by using asmall number over aproximately1%. And through a vlid mathematical method known as extrapolation thelarger value was btained.



In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results. Extrapolation may also mean extension of a method, assuming similar methods will be applicable. Extrapolation may also apply to human experience to project, extend, or expand known experience into an area not known or previously experienced so as to arrive at a (usually conjectural) knowledge of the unknown [1] (e.g. a driver extrapolates road conditions beyond his sight while driving). The extrapolation method can be applied in the interior reconstruction problem.
-- en.wikipedia.org...

This value was extrapolated because the whole 16,500 (or so) nucleotides had not been sequenced. So out of some 167 there were 17dfferences. There is absolutely no reason to think there ratio of differences would change over the larger region. Thus the use of extrapolation is viable, and valid.

By the way; you're not a "DBA" (Database administrator), nor do you appear to be a computer scientist...so...just where do you get your notions of best practices in data analysis?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418


Absolutely amazing...do you see...on either side of the page, in large text the words "DENY IGNORANCE"...

Yes that valuewas obtained by using asmall number over aproximately1%. And through a vlid mathematical method known as extrapolation thelarger value was btained.



In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results. Extrapolation may also mean extension of a method, assuming similar methods will be applicable. Extrapolation may also apply to human experience to project, extend, or expand known experience into an area not known or previously experienced so as to arrive at a (usually conjectural) knowledge of the unknown [1] (e.g. a driver extrapolates road conditions beyond his sight while driving). The extrapolation method can be applied in the interior reconstruction problem.
-- en.wikipedia.org...

Except it's NOT valid. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where is the confidence level? You obviously have never taken or done research.


This value was extrapolated because the whole 16,500 (or so) nucleotides had not been sequenced. So out of some 167 there were 17dfferences. There is absolutely no reason to think there ratio of differences would change over the larger region. Thus the use of extrapolation is viable, and valid.

No, it's not. Their use of this extreme level of extrapolation invalidates the entire finding. What is the confidence level?


By the way; you're not a "DBA" (Database administrator), nor do you appear to be a computer scientist...so...just where do you get your notions of best practices in data analysis?


Maybe the fact research, statistics, and data analysis was required for my degree and I actually worked in research for a few years.

What if 1% of the population voted and they simply extrapolated those votes to decide who the winner is. Let's say we extrapolate from rural Arkansas every year. That's fine, and will give the same answer as allowing 100% of the population to vote, right? You'd get the same results as if we extrapolated 1% of the votes from urban Boston, right?
edit on 29-10-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
there are 2011 results.


What lab performed the 2011 tests?
Please show us the full 2011 lab report.

If you cannot that indicates you are just making crap up.
edit on 29-10-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Dude thinks a NON RANDOM sample of 1% of the data can be extrapolated to draw conclusions.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:17 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 see.

So the starchild is a human-opossum hybrid.

Harte



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
does it do an independent scan of the cranium?


a reply to: draknoir2



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
does it do an independent scan of the cranium?


a reply to: draknoir2


Is there any raw data available that is proven by reputable labs?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

What lab performed the 2011 tests?
Please show us the full 2011 lab report.

If you cannot that indicates you are just making crap up.


They are a secret lab with secret technicians! lol

But let's talk about the 2010 reports: they were undertaken by BLAST, which is online and anybody can do it.... so I did. I just went there and inserted a made up 320 letter 'nucleotide' sequence, basically random A C T and G letters. Let's compare the results.

The Starchild results showing 'No significant similarity found' which Pye & Co have translated as 'there is no known Earth corollary for what has been analyzed':



My results with random letters:





And I got the same! How can some people actually believe these tests are real? How can people be so naive to believe that what's posted on the Star child project website is true?

blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

edit on 29-10-2015 by Agartha because: Added a bigger pic



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

They refuse to say what they entered in or let anyone else analyze it and enter it.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Agartha

They refuse to say what they entered in or let anyone else analyze it and enter it.


Exactly, because it's all a lot of rubbish.. and it is making them rich!



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Agartha

They refuse to say what they entered in or let anyone else analyze it and enter it.


Exactly, because it's all a lot of rubbish.. and it is making them rich!

The only open data proves 100% human. So now they won't release data and make claims, and ask for $7 million.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.



originally posted by: tanka418
Your analogy is wholly incorrect!

Your faux ignorance is rather unbecoming.




As is your faux answer to the direct question.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
does it do an independent scan of the cranium?


a reply to: draknoir2



What?




top topics



 
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join