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.

 

Starchild bump

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

No, it doesn't. Extrapolation does not work on non-random data. We already had this discussion. Need to have it again?


Yes we have...you are wrong! It works equally well on all data...

Now, before you respond...you will have to provide some proof that you are correct.

Awesome. I will provide proof in a very simple easy to understand format.

Let us use the 2008 US presidential election.

We will determine support for Obama. We will choose to only survey black voters in Massachusetts. We will then extrapolate those results to the whole country. How accurate will the results be do you think?


You know full well it doesn't work quite like that, and, that what you are attempting to demonstrate is vastly different than the current context.

You either don't really have any notion what we're talking about here, or you are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting reader...shame...

No. That is EXACTLY what they did. That is why you can not extrapolate from NON RANDOM DATA. Thank you for agreeing with me.

They provide NO DATA to see the process they used to extrapolate. Extrapolation is very easy to manipulate.




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

I have been through that whole site tonight and there is no data. There are "reports" and "summaries" and "analysis", but not anyway data.



Then I submit that you know nothing about the subject we are attempting to discuss...as you appear incapable of recognizing valid salient data.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

There's a couple of pictures of DNA that has been sequenced. That's it. There's no data. There's conclusions, summaries and explanations, but no data.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

I have been through that whole site tonight and there is no data. There are "reports" and "summaries" and "analysis", but not anyway data.



Then I submit that you know nothing about the subject we are attempting to discuss...as you appear incapable of recognizing valid salient data.




You can't even link any actual data. You linked conclusions.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No. That is EXACTLY what they did. That is why you can not extrapolate from NON RANDOM DATA. Thank you for agreeing with me.


I'm sorry man, but the misuse of mathematics by idiots does not change anything. Extrapolation is a mathematical thing, not the twitching and jerking of the political process.




They provide NO DATA to see the process they used to extrapolate. Extrapolation is very easy to manipulate.


Actually, they did provide that data...starchildproject.com... near the bottom of the page. Oh, and it wasn't their extrapolation, it was mine...still valid though!



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

I have been through that whole site tonight and there is no data. There are "reports" and "summaries" and "analysis", but not anyway data.



Then I submit that you know nothing about the subject we are attempting to discuss...as you appear incapable of recognizing valid salient data.




You can't even link any actual data. You linked conclusions.


It's not too much to ask to link to the actual data, is it? I even asked nicely. Maybe I should say please?


Please tanka418 can you link directly to the data?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

That's THEIR report.

It isn't DATA.

ETA: The DATA is what was used to come up with the report (just in case you didn't know).
edit on 342016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

I'm sorry man, but the misuse of mathematics by idiots does not change anything. Extrapolation is a mathematical thing, not the twitching and jerking of the political process.

It can be valid. As I showed extrapolation of non-random data is not valid. Validity must be established by reviewing their data and their process, none of which they make available.




Actually, they did provide that data...starchildproject.com... near the bottom of the page. Oh, and it wasn't their extrapolation, it was mine...still valid though!

Sorry, there is no data.

After repeated sequencing, some of those 17 differences could be confirmed as reading errors by the program


Basically it's about as unscientific as it gets. They are not even putting up finalized data, they might as well just make stuff up.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

That's THEIR report.

It isn't DATA.

ETA: The DATA is what was used to come up with the report (just in case you didn't know).

Exactly. Conclusions about the data are drawn. Data and methodology are hidden.

I have already had this exact discussion with him before.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

I have been through that whole site tonight and there is no data. There are "reports" and "summaries" and "analysis", but not anyway data.



Then I submit that you know nothing about the subject we are attempting to discuss...as you appear incapable of recognizing valid salient data.




You can't even link any actual data. You linked conclusions.


Perhaps if you were to actually read those "reports" you might learn something, you might also see the data you pretend to seek.

I'm sorry man, but you seem to have an issue with the style of the report, and since you don't like the style you proclaim the report invalid, incorrect, or whatever...you are wrong! What you are doing is depriving yourself of knowledge, and truth...

And, as I've said to another here; it is rather improbable that you could understand the raw data. And, since you fail to recognize elements of that raw data, it becomes even less likely that you could process said raw data...either of you...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

That's THEIR report.

It isn't DATA.

ETA: The DATA is what was used to come up with the report (just in case you didn't know).

Exactly. Conclusions about the data are drawn. Data and methodology are hidden.

I have already had this exact discussion with him before.


If the skull really was alien you would think they would put up all of the data so people can see it and it can be proven to be alien.

Instead we get summaries, conclusions, reports and speculation.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

I have been through that whole site tonight and there is no data. There are "reports" and "summaries" and "analysis", but not anyway data.



Then I submit that you know nothing about the subject we are attempting to discuss...as you appear incapable of recognizing valid salient data.




You can't even link any actual data. You linked conclusions.


Perhaps if you were to actually read those "reports" you might learn something, you might also see the data you pretend to seek.

I'm sorry man, but you seem to have an issue with the style of the report, and since you don't like the style you proclaim the report invalid, incorrect, or whatever...you are wrong! What you are doing is depriving yourself of knowledge, and truth...

And, as I've said to another here; it is rather improbable that you could understand the raw data. And, since you fail to recognize elements of that raw data, it becomes even less likely that you could process said raw data...either of you...


I quoted this for a reason. You see the first paragraph? It says reports. That's not data.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
If the skull really was alien you would think they would put up all of the data so people can see it and it can be proven to be alien.

Instead we get summaries, conclusions, reports and speculation.


Obviously if they released the date everyone would know it was human, so his income from the skull would stop! So of course he is not going to release the data!



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Where's the DATA that ended up with the conclusion it wasn't hydrocephalus or any other birth/genetic defect?

Where's the DATA showing the 17 anomalies (that can be easily put down to known errors)?

Where's any of the DATA?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It can be valid. As I showed extrapolation of non-random data is not valid. Validity must be established by reviewing their data and their process, none of which they make available.


Sorry man, but you have not shown that...to even appear to insist that is true is to deliberately misrepresent.

And, both the data and method is shown...
starchildproject.com... near the bottom of the page.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That can't be right though because tanka says there's data.

Surely he couldn't be wrong?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Title - Starchild Skull DNA Analysis Report—2011


Report.


Not data.


Show me the data.
edit on 342016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
And, as I've said to another here; it is rather improbable that you could understand the raw data. And, since you fail to recognize elements of that raw data, it becomes even less likely that you could process said raw data...either of you...


Awesome deflection. They don't give me the data because I just can't handle it.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You obviously have never been involved in research. What you claim is false. People should be able to look at the data and methodology and test them to see if they reach the same conclusions.

They purposefully prevent that.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Where's the DATA that ended up with the conclusion it wasn't hydrocephalus or any other birth/genetic defect?

Where's the DATA showing the 17 anomalies (that can be easily put down to known errors)?

Where's any of the DATA?


Well ... since you know about the 17 anomalies, then you know about the data...and of course the detail about those 17 anomalies.

So...that might indicate that you are knowingly misrepresenting this...your bad....

If you can't be truthful, there is little point in trying to have an intelligent discussion.

And, IF you can explain these 17 anomalies, please do so...although probability suggests you can't...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join