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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Title - Starchild Skull DNA Analysis Report—2011


Report.


Not data.


Show me the data.


Read the report...it contains the data...




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

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...


Only reason I know of the 17 anomalies is because it's in one of the reports. The one that also states...

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


So they actually explained it themselves. I, however, cannot as I do not have the data to look at and compare to other anomalies of the same nature.

So, for it to be truly scientific and trustworthy, we would need the data.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between data and conclusions about the data.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Title - Starchild Skull DNA Analysis Report—2011


Report.


Not data.


Show me the data.


Read the report...it contains the data...


It contains fragments of data. It doesn't contain methodology, full data (including errors) and a whole list of other things we would need just to falsify their results.
edit on 342016 by TerryDon79 because: wrong word



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

They make it impossible to determine the credibility of the data as well. Who did the work. Credentials etc ...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryDon79

They make it impossible to determine the credibility of the data as well. Who did the work. Credentials etc ...


I wonder why they would do that?




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

They claim they have to keep them anonymous but they will eventually reveal them! It's only been 5 years, guess they need to wait longer.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryDon79

They claim they have to keep them anonymous but they will eventually reveal them! It's only been 5 years, guess they need to wait longer.


Longer they wait more real it is, obviously.

:eye roll



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Only reason I know of the 17 anomalies is because it's in one of the reports. The one that also states...

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


So they actually explained it themselves. I, however, cannot as I do not have the data to look at and compare to other anomalies of the same nature.

So, for it to be truly scientific and trustworthy, we would need the data.


You an Occam are truly funny kids...however, you are not very good at this data analysis, nor are you very close to truth and reality of the Starchild Skull. You like to insist that there is no data, and based on that lack you make a determination that requires that very same data; how does that work?

Any way...concerning those 17 anomalies...you remember the ones from last night with "no data"?

Here:



Your data sir...enjoy...

You might also want ot get to work debunking those 17 anomalies...lol...IF ya can...lol



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryDon79

They make it impossible to determine the credibility of the data as well. Who did the work. Credentials etc ...


If you look in the header of the data fragment I posted; you will find the identity of the technician that was operating the robot that did the actual analysis...

Or were you wanting the bots make/model ? (even with that there are only a handful of possibilities...) OR did you not know that Humans are not very involved in this process?




edit on 3-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You keep saying they have data, yet on page 1 of this thread you said yourself they haven't released all the data.

Just to analyse the DNA data we need to see what information they put into the machine to compare it against the skull. For all we know they could have compared the skull against nice DNA (we don't know as there is no data).

So, show me the DATA I can use to falsify their results.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

From your post on page one..

LLoyd Pye was "clever" in that respect and did not release adequate data.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

You keep saying they have data, yet on page 1 of this thread you said yourself they haven't released all the data.

Just to analyse the DNA data we need to see what information they put into the machine to compare it against the skull. For all we know they could have compared the skull against nice DNA (we don't know as there is no data).

So, show me the DATA I can use to falsify their results.


You keep demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...when are you going to admit that; you don't know?

Yes I said they didn't release all the data. But then again all the data isn't necessary. For instance; we don't have the autosomal data, but, we aren't considering that data at present. We don't have Y-STR Data...but again we aren't looking at that right now...

What we are considering is the 17 anomalies reported; and you have that data...

Yes, I suppose it could be mouse DNA, but, then again...that would be reflected in the results we are considering...unless mouse mtdna is indistinguishable from Human...I don't think it is...do you?

You say you need the data they put into the machine; except, that machine doesn't accept data as an input, it accepts a DNA/tissue sample...but I'm sure you knew that, and are simply trying to obfuscate reality again...

Bottom line, just as with evidence of ET visitation, you are insisting there is no data in your attempts to shield yourself from a painful reality...And, just like that evidence of visitation...the evidence is right there in front of you...you only need open your eyes.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

The results from 1999 say there is quite a significant amount of contamination (which we aren't told by how). X-Ray exposure damages and degrades DNA, which may have decreased the quantity and quality of DNA available in the bone before it was extracted. Significant contamination also means that any further tests would very likely contain contamination.

The 17 differences aren't actually as world breaking as you think. Pye twists the differences into "there is NO known earthly corollary for what has been analysed!", which is not what the 2010 BLAST report says.

He also glosses over the part of the report that explains why no major similarities have been found. He says that it is merely "an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques". It would be nice to actually see this though.

Did you see that part? I'll say it again. "an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques"



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

The results from 1999 say there is quite a significant amount of contamination (which we aren't told by how). X-Ray exposure damages and degrades DNA, which may have decreased the quantity and quality of DNA available in the bone before it was extracted. Significant contamination also means that any further tests would very likely contain contamination.

The 17 differences aren't actually as world breaking as you think. Pye twists the differences into "there is NO known earthly corollary for what has been analysed!", which is not what the 2010 BLAST report says.



Again, we are not using 1999 results, we are focusing on current data...

Show us where in the 2010 BLAST report that it explains the significance of those 17 anomalies...
Y'all might also want to address how a report from 2010 addresses anomalies found in a 2011 analysis...

Statistically...the mtdna is highly anomalous with its 10X(+) anomalies...while I'm not sure I would characterize it as "world breaking", I would think of it as highly anomalous...and as a set of anomalies that require more than some "leaping gnome's" inadequate brush off of an explanation...I'm very sure you can make up something much better to explain away this discrepancy of 6.3% difference, where the entire Human species only displays a 0.6% difference.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

It's already been explained.

Contamination is contamination. Doesn't matter if it's in 1999 or 2010, it's still contamination.

Pyes team has never released enough data to falsify their results. No one can look at any of their newer data and run tests to confirm or deny the results.

The differences have been explained. I'll say it again.

an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques

The differences aren't differences. They are anomalies that can be anything from different DNA to a misreading with the machine. The anomalies were never explored so to say they are something or nothing 100% would be a flat out lie.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

It's already been explained.

Contamination is contamination. Doesn't matter if it's in 1999 or 2010, it's still contamination.



And just how much contamination was reported for 2010? I don't remember any at all. You wanting it does not make it so...



Pyes team has never released enough data to falsify their results. No one can look at any of their newer data and run tests to confirm or deny the results.


I remember a discussion about this notion of "falsification" in science...it was determined to be BS brought about by some who were not doing well in a discussion...




The differences have been explained. I'll say it again.

an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques

The differences aren't differences. They are anomalies that can be anything from different DNA to a misreading with the machine. The anomalies were never explored so to say they are something or nothing 100% would be a flat out lie.


Now we get to the good part...you keep insisting on this and trying to use that phrase bolded above. The problem is that that phrase was not used in a context where the mtdna was involved. In fact that wee phrase was used in a context of testing a nuclear DNA string of some 342 elements...vastly different than mtdna, and very dishonest of you...nearly fraudulent.

So anyway...you have thoroughly discredited yourself here. You are making statements about the data that quite simply do not apply in context. You attempt to use constructs that are quite unscientific. You even go so far as to obfuscate the data, and misrepresent it. All in an attempt to support your mistaken notions on this dataset...course then again, it seems as though you have no idea what is data and what isn't...as that seems to change as needed to support your misconstrued idea.

edit on 3-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

What data? There's minimal data and certainly not enough to do anything with.

And just how much contamination was reported for 2010? I don't remember any at all. You want it does not make it so...

There's no mention of contamination in the newer reports as it would further discredit the workings of Pyes team.


I remember a discussion about this notion of "falsification" in science...it was determined to be BS brought about by some who were not doing well in a discussion...

You're now arguing about scientific falsification? Falsification is used in science, deal with it.


Now we get to the good part...you keep insisting on this and trying to use that phrase bolded above. The problem is that that phrase was not used in a context where the mtdna was involved. In fact that wee phrase was used in a context of testing a nuclear DNA string of some 342 elements...vastly different than mtdna, and very dishonest of you...nearly fraudulent.

Just wow. You do know that nuDNA and nuDNA are both DNA?


So anyway...you have thoroughly discredited yourself here. You are making statements about the data that quite simply do not apply in context. You attempt to use constructs that are quite unscientific. You even go so far as to obfuscate the data, and misrepresent it. All in an attempt to support your mistaken notions on this dataset...course then again, it seems as though you have no idea what is data and what isn't...as that seems to change as needed to support your misconstrued idea.

I've not changed my ideas on what data is. I know what data is. Pyes team have not released enough to the public to verify their results.

ETA: The anomalies found were in 2010 and they were found in the nuDNA. The anomolies were never investigated (as far as anyone knows) and Pyes team concluded it was because it wasn't human. And you have the nerve to say I obfuscate and misrepresent data?!
edit on 342016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
deformed skull shows anomalies, surely a (other) world first.
i see leonard pye is still taking paypal donations.
scientists proved it was human, however.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
deformed skull shows anomalies, surely a (other) world first.
i see leonard pye is still taking paypal donations.
scientists proved it was human, however.


Pye isn't because he died. His team, however, are still after $250,000 per year for 3+ years. .

There's actually an update saying they received $10,000 in January last year to carry on with testing, but there's no mention of the tests being done over a year later.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join