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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Clinton's "son" Cut from You tube, OOPS turned back on You Tube

page: 2
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: imjack


Bu-bu-but they already tested him against a sample of Bill's DNA.

www.allenbwest.com...

Negative.


Huh??? Inconclusive; not negative. From your source:


In 1999, The Star magazine paid Bobbie Ann Williams for her son’s blood samples. Supposedly the magazine compared the results of the tests with the FBI analysis of the president’s blood in the report by Kenneth Starr, the independent prosecutor (who was using the blood samples to match the DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s dress “stain.”) The Star’s test was negative.


As far as I can tell, that actual analysis of that "comparison" has never been made public; just their "conclusion." Nor has it ever been independently verified/confirmed.


However… Ether Zone says, To this day the FBI will not say that its lab report accurately portrays President Clinton’s DNA profile, or whether that profile may have been altered in documents released to the House Judiciary Committee for reasons of national security or privacy. If Clinton’s DNA was in any way camouflaged in the report, The Star’s test would have been inaccurate anyway.


That's just one issue with the supposed test done... Here's another, also from your source:


Noted Connecticut criminologist Dr. Henry Lee told the New York Daily News that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that the FBI used to match Clinton’s DNA to the stain on Monica Lewinsky’s dress would be inadequate to prove paternity in the Danny Williams case. “You can use the PCR test to exclude President Clinton or to say he could be (Danny’s father).”

So we still don’t know the truth.


The questionable source for these claims (a tabloid rag whose owner had close political ties with Clinton) is also an issue.

Even Snopes concurs with the above and declares the claim "unproven," not "false."

No definitive and conclusive DNA paternity test has been done.

ETA: This is a pretty good article on the whole sordid affair for anyone interested: Danney Williams , Bill Clinton And Their DNA


I like how you correct me, and in the very next quote from the source you use yourself "The Star’s test was negative."

No one is disputing the test is negative,(Actually this is inaccurate, conservatives will claim anything so naturally there are stories where the same exact test we're disputing is positive) you would have to be a moron to claim otherwise. The test was also not 'inconclusive', the accurate test had a negative result. There was a test.

What is inconclusive is if the DNA take from the dress is Bill's. Here's the thing about DNA though, they could rip the dress to pieces looking for a match if it was there, they could have tested it hundreds of times against Danny, and it's likely they did this. I only mention this because it's mentioned numerous times Bill's sperm is on the dress, so there is no question DNA was left behind. We have to follow the source.


The thing is these claims don't even predate 1992, when they were invented.

Can you even show me Danny's new YouTube Channel, or even the name of the old one? I find it incredibly suspicious you can't even locate it and everyone one of these news stories are telling first hand account of someone who is essentially unknown.




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

www.youtube.com...


edit on 27-10-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)


I don't know how to verify, but this is on you tube.
edit on 27-10-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: imjack

www.youtube.com...




Joined Oct 10, 2016


Okay, now to my first question: What?



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

So he's mad his 2 week old YouTube account was deleted?

Where the hell did these come from:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


He didn't feel he was being represented?

They are older than 2 weeks.

edit on 27-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Maybe, you can go to his discussion area on his you tube channel and ask.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Yes, Bill's friends at the tabloid Star Magazine claimed their "test" was negative. But your source, Allen B West, claimed it was inconclusive and that we still "don't know the truth." And, as you acknowledge, there is no confirmation whatsoever that they were actually testing with Bill's actual DNA information -- so, again, inconclusive. And even if the DNA information for Bill was accurate, the limitations of the data/testing would not have provided conclusive results. Nor have any actual analyses been provided for independent confirmation/verification.

Nothing is proven or disproven at this point. Hence the objective of Danney Williams' lawsuit.

As far as Danney Williams' youtube channel, I'm not sure what that's about, but since your Google must be broken, here ya go:
Bill Clinton's Son - Danney Williams
Bill Clinton's Black Son BANISHED - The Story of Danney Williams



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You missed the point of the word play, the source uses it plenty seeing as this is a mock story.

You can SAY 'inconclusive test' all you want, but it only underlines your ignorance to the way things are.

It's claimed the test was negative. This does infact mean they were able to abstract DNA. You cannot have a negative test without it.

An "Inconclusive test" would literally be representation of a destroyed, faulty or genetically incompatible(not negative) or statistically irrelevant test.


In other worrrrrds

In paternity testing, any result above 0% and under 99% is considered to be inconclusive by accredited DNA testing laboratories. “Inconclusive” means that no concrete answer can be reached with the current samples, neither a “yes” (“not excluded”) or a “no” (“excluded”).

There are two common possibilities that can yield an inconclusive DNA result when testing for paternity:

1. The samples collected did not yield enough DNA, or 2. A conclusive answer cannot be reached without adding the biological mother’s DNA to the test.


It CAN be because of a 'lack of DNA', but this is not ALWAYS the case. You even mention yourself stating it would not provide conclusive results because of the limitations of the 'data'.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Chain of Custody in DNA Testing



Chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation that shows the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence. The whole purpose of this procedure is to avoid tampering and to establish the legal status of the evidence. In a legal DNA paternity test , it means proper identification of the tested parties, proper collection, shipping and handling of the specimens, all of which should be documented by a paper trail. In addition, everyone involved in the testing process from the specimen collector to the DNA analyst should be a third party who has no interest in the outcome of the test and documents his involvement in the process truthfully.

AABB, the regulating organization for the DNA family relationship testing industry, requires that its accredited laboratories follow the strict chain-of-custody procedures. Only chain-of-custody DNA testing results are legally admissible and accepted by government authorities such as child support agencies or the immigration services as a piece of legal evidence.

To satisfy this requirement, Universal Genetics employs the following chain-of-custody procedures:

Identification of the tested parties at collection, which includes verifying IDs and taking pictures of tested parties;
Obtaining consent from adult tested parties and legal guardians for minor tested parties;
Collection of specimens from the tested parties performed by a trained third-party professional who will document his involvement truthfully;
Proper labeling and packaging of the specimens by the collector;
Shipping specimens by courier services directly to the laboratory;
Receipt of specimens by the DNA laboratory;
Transfer and testing of specimens within the DNA laboratory;
Storage of specimens;
Reporting of results with case specific chain-of-custody documents.

Some states including New York have laws that prohibit their residents from taking a DNA paternity test without following the strict chain-of-custody procedures. Therefore, no legitimate DNA testing laboratory will offer an in-home or curiosity DNA test to the residents in these states.



This is the proper way to have a DNA test done. The thing is you have to have verification that the DNA belongs to the person in question. So grabbing a hair brush works great in the movies, but not so much in the legal world.

dnatestingforpaternity.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Lets hug random tabloid source though, even when Drudge Report disagrees with them.


"The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity," TIME magazine reported.

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father.

"Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well," a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday.

"For him, this was always just a search for the truth," the source added.

In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother — Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her "relationship" with Bill Clinton — the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science.

edit on 27-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack




"The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity," TIME magazine reported. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that 13-year old Danny Williams is now dealing with the news that Bill Clinton is not his father. "Danny is holding up fine ... doing quite well," a source close to the situation in Arkansas explained on Saturday. "For him, this was always just a search for the truth," the source added. In what now must be viewed as a cruel hoax by the boy's mother — Bobbie Ann Williams even gave a paid interview to PARAMOUNT's HARD COPY detailing her "relationship" with Bill Clinton — the story of sex for money that ended in pregnancy itself, in the end, was debunked and flunked by science.


source please



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: seasonal

A DNA test would clear this right up.
since the nineties huh? And no tests have been done?
Need a bridge?


They did a test and it came back inconclusive here's why:

Noted Connecticut criminologist Dr. Henry Lee told the New York Daily News that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that the FBI used to match Clinton’s DNA to the stain on Monica Lewinsky’s dress would be inadequate to prove paternity in the Danny Williams case. “You can use the PCR test to exclude President Clinton or to say he could be (Danny’s father).”

Bill's a deadbeat dad. The Clinton foundation has deep pockets, so Bill can cough up some back due child support.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It's from snoopes rofl.

Here is Drudge archive.

www.drudgereportarchives.com...
edit on 27-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

I haven't missed anything. Star never "extracted" Bill's DNA and never had any of Bill's DNA to test. Star's test could not and did not conclude anything. Star is not an expert in the matter and their results are not evidence of anything, much less proof.

Spin it all you want, it is what it is.

But I'll tell you this much: If Star were claiming the opposite -- that their test conclusively proved Bill Clinton as the father -- I would be saying exactly the same thing. I sincerely doubt you would be.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Improper chain of custody and the star story's test was inconclusive.

No lawful and legal paternity test will ever be preformed. Bill has way too much power to "make" him do it.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Why not? Let's hear your preconceived bias of what I would be saying to express your non-partisanship. That makes total sense.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: imjack

Star's test could not and did not conclude anything.


This is why Time said:
"The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity."

This is why Star's source said: "There was no match. Not even close,"

You don't think the ludicrous tabloid would be dissapointed the results were false and wouldn't first spin the story back into play?

How can you claim I'm spinning anything? Star doesn't even agree with themselves.
edit on 27-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Boadicea

Why not? Let's hear your preconceived bias of what I would be saying to express your non-partisanship. That makes total sense.


I've said what I have to say... and I'm in such a foul mood this morning that I just don't have it in me to continue this nonsense. Especially since nothing you nor I say or think bears any relevance whatsoever. We are not the problem, we are not the solution. So have the last word with my blessings.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I have an idea. Can he submit a DNA sample to ancestry dot com and match his DNA with known Clinton relatives?

Just an idea.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: galaga
I have an idea. Can he submit a DNA sample to ancestry dot com and match his DNA with known Clinton relatives?

Just an idea.


That sounds like an excellent idea to me. I'm not sure if it would work, but I read recently about a case in which law enforcement did use such a site to match the DNA for a suspect. I believe it was a rape case. The suspect's cousin had their DNA analyzed and the police were able to match the DNA via the site.

Maybe Danney Williams will find this thread and your comment and give it a try.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join