Starchild bump

a reply to: tanka418

Hang in there a moment.

The 1999 results are invalid due to contamination, but any results after are considered acceptable eve though there is still contamination?

Where's the data to show how they got round the contamination issue then? Oh wait, they just ignore it. Real scientific.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So the 1999 tests and 2010 tests that proved that a, there was contamination and b, it was a human male is dismissed because it doesn't fit with your bias.

BTW where's the data? One mtDNA result does not prove anything.

In as much as one DNA result is enough to end your life; I'd say it is more than enough to demonstrate a life.

But even in police forensics, if they find any anomolies they retest. But nice strawman, again.

Just thought I'd add this....

That gel photo you (and Pye and his team) keep touting as proof?

It's generic.

All it proves is that there is DNA present.

Do you also know that an extract of DNA would make a smear and not bands?

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.

That means the DNA is of a known sequence.

(You can reproduce the above in a lab if you want to)

Also, it has been proven that the skull has X and Y chromosomes (Pye and his team admit that), yet we don't know if aliens have either, both or more.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Hang in there a moment.

The 1999 results are invalid due to contamination, but any results after are considered acceptable eve though there is still contamination?

Ya know...IF you had read the 1999 paper and understood, as I'm sure you think you have, you would have the answer to your question.

Seriously they sort of attempted to address this issue, did you miss it?

a reply to: tanka418

And you and the other "followers" accept their word based on a single gel photo.

That's just sooooooooo much data!!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just thought I'd add this....

That gel photo you (and Pye and his team) keep touting as proof?

It's generic.

All it proves is that there is DNA present.

Do you also know that an extract of DNA would make a smear and not bands?

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.

That means the DNA is of a known sequence.

So...all that stuff I had to learn to design a DNA analyzing Bot was wrong?!!??? So...why did the beast work?

Everything you just said tells me you have little notion "How" DNA is analyzed...

Also, it has been proven that the skull has X and Y chromosomes (Pye and his team admit that), yet we don't know if aliens have either, both or more.

Irrelevant...Besides that is something known...just ask Hermes...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

And you and the other "followers" accept their word based on a single gel photo.

That's just sooooooooo much data!!

Me and the other followers??? What are you talking about?

And, what gel photo??!

Are you changing what we are talking about mid-stream without notifications again?? You do know that is very improper in a discussion...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just thought I'd add this....

That gel photo you (and Pye and his team) keep touting as proof?

It's generic.

All it proves is that there is DNA present.

Do you also know that an extract of DNA would make a smear and not bands?

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.

That means the DNA is of a known sequence.

So...all that stuff I had to learn to design a DNA analyzing Bot was wrong?!!??? So...why did the beast work?

Everything you just said tells me you have little notion "How" DNA is analyzed...

How you can be so wrong, yet so arrogant that you think you're right is astounding.

Also, it has been proven that the skull has X and Y chromosomes (Pye and his team admit that), yet we don't know if aliens have either, both or more.

Irrelevant...Besides that is something known...just ask Hermes...

How is this irrelevant? Oh, because you say so? Afraid it doesn't work like that, sport.

Still waiting for all the data, that you said exists, that proves its not a human male from haplogroup c.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

And you and the other "followers" accept their word based on a single gel photo.

That's just sooooooooo much data!!

Me and the other followers??? What are you talking about?

The followers of the starchild skull. The ones who believe it is not human.

And, what gel photo??!

The photo is that what you have been touting as evidence. A gel photo is what is needed (my bad) to be actual data.

Are you changing what we are talking about mid-stream without notifications again?? You do know that is very improper in a discussion...

Considering the original discussion was about the nasal of the skull, it was you that changed the topic.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

The 1999 results are invalid due to contamination, but any results after are considered acceptable eve though there is still contamination?

I had to address this...

Yes, sor of. That is one of the hallmarks of adaptive analysis methods and systems...
After "seeing" the "Exceptions" produced by the contamination, they can be effectively deal with, and the affects removed from output data.

I build systems like this...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

The 1999 results are invalid due to contamination, but any results after are considered acceptable eve though there is still contamination?

I had to address this...

Yes, sor of. That is one of the hallmarks of adaptive analysis methods and systems...
After "seeing" the "Exceptions" produced by the contamination, they can be effectively deal with, and the affects removed from output data.

I build systems like this...

So now you're an expert?

Who would have seen that coming?

So an "expert" who doesn't know how to find data. Strange.

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Still waiting for all the data, that you said exists, that proves its not a human male from haplogroup c.

I don't remember saying there was data about that...at least no current.

But, since you don't have anything but known contaminated data to support your position, I guess its moot...

The gel photo is that what you have been touting as evidence.

I haven't been "touting" a gel photo...sorry man, but you're wrong!

a reply to: tanka418
1999 tests proved it was human male.
2003 tests proved its mother was from haplogroup c.
Therefore a human male from haplogroup c.

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

So now we're back to this? Son, I thought we settled all that crap...

Here...the data I've not posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

So now we're back to this? Son, I thought we settled all that crap...

Here...the data I've not posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's not data. That's results. Where's the gel strip to go with it?

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

So now we're back to this? Son, I thought we settled all that crap...

Here...the data I've not posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's not data. That's results. Where's the gel strip to go with it?

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

Actually that is the human readable output of a machine that tested the DNA sample. There is no "gel strip" per se' The sample is tested by a robot and the test results are compiled into a human readable report. What I've posted that report...of machine data translated into human readable form. Before that...you wouldn't recognize the data as it is only a collection of binary objects, wholly unreadable my you.

Now, why don't you grow up a little and go on about your way...

a reply to: tanka418

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

a reply to: tanka418

You have one machine output that you are saying is data. That's the only thing your whole argument relies on. The rest is believing what they're telling you and not believing what was said by scientists previously.

It's almost like a religion.

Forgot to add this. Silly me.

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)