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.

 

Alien Star child skull latest info?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Hate to say I told you so but ...

The Starchild Skull was confirmed to be 100% human.

thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com...

According to the report:
" However, no modern comparison samples were submitted with this batch from the archaeologists or any other individual who may have handled the sample and potentially contaminated it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that these profiles are authentic and not a previous handler."

In other words, the lab could not rule out the possibility of prior contamination of the samples tested by human handling. Given the provenance of the skull and the amount of handling it has received, this weakness totally invalidates the conclusions of the lab that the skull is that of a male human. A proper scientific response - as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction - must be that no scientific conclusion can be drawn from the tests because they could not rule out the possibility of contamination.

Hate to say it, but you are all jumping to conclusions over a report that appears to confirm your long-held suspicions about the Pye skull being human but which does not if you stick to scientific logic and stop ignoring the possibility of prior contamination.

I'd point out to you that it was Pye himself that started this starchild dna analysis shtick in the first place and he couldn't rule out contamination either.
You can thank Pye for any contamination if it exists by the way. He didn't know how to handle such a relic but that didn't keep him from getting his hands all over it.

Harte




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Where are you seeing that. I did a search on my source and it came up with no matches for what you quoted.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I keep asking the poster he won't show me where he finds that in my source. I can't find it.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Hate to say I told you so but ...

The Starchild Skull was confirmed to be 100% human.

thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com...

According to the report:
" However, no modern comparison samples were submitted with this batch from the archaeologists or any other individual who may have handled the sample and potentially contaminated it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that these profiles are authentic and not a previous handler."

In other words, the lab could not rule out the possibility of prior contamination of the samples tested by human handling. Given the provenance of the skull and the amount of handling it has received, this weakness totally invalidates the conclusions of the lab that the skull is that of a male human. A proper scientific response - as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction - must be that no scientific conclusion can be drawn from the tests because they could not rule out the possibility of contamination.

Hate to say it, but you are all jumping to conclusions over a report that appears to confirm your long-held suspicions about the Pye skull being human but which does not if you stick to scientific logic and stop ignoring the possibility of prior contamination.

I'd point out to you that it was Pye himself that started this starchild dna analysis shtick in the first place and he couldn't rule out contamination either.
You can thank Pye for any contamination if it exists by the way. He didn't know how to handle such a relic but that didn't keep him from getting his hands all over it.

Harte

It is not Pye's fault that the contamination of the skull ruined the conclusions of the lab. He was given it by a family who had possessed it for many years. You are missing the point: no lab testing for DNA was EVER going to yield a conclusive result because the contamination issue was unavoidable, given the provenance of the centuries-old skull.
edit on 13-6-2017 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Harte

I keep asking the poster he won't show me where he finds that in my source. I can't find it.


You can find the qualification on page 6 of the report here. I quote:
"The combination of replication, fragment sizes obtained, procedures in place for laboratory sterilization and elimination of Paleo-DNA Laboratory DNA profiles suggest the results are authentic and not contamination. However, no modern comparison samples were submitted with this batch from the archaeologists or any other individual who may have handled the sample and potentially
contaminated it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that these profiles are authentic and not a previous handler."

The last sentence TOTALLY renders inconclusive the lab's findings.
edit on 13-6-2017 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Harte

I keep asking the poster he won't show me where he finds that in my source. I can't find it.


You can find the qualification on page 6 of the report here. I quote:
"The combination of replication, fragment sizes obtained, procedures in place for laboratory sterilization and elimination of Paleo-DNA Laboratory DNA profiles suggest the results are authentic and not contamination. However, no modern comparison samples were submitted with this batch from the archaeologists or any other individual who may have handled the sample and potentially
contaminated it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that these profiles are authentic and not a previous handler."

The last sentence TOTALLY renders inconclusive the lab's findings.

Where it says ...

The combination of replication, fragment sizes obtained, procedures in place for laboratory sterilization and elimination of Paleo-DNA Laboratory DNA profiles suggest the results are authentic and not contamination.

Controls were run at every step of the analysis and gave expected results. The above profiles do not match any staff member or laboratory user at the PaleoDNA Laboratory, past or present.


You completely misrepresent what the report says. All it says is that Pye let people touch the skull and they have no samples for those people to test against. But it would require someone of the same haplogroup to be the contaminator, contaminating every single sample taken by multiple labs in multiple places where contamination is almost impossible. So it is not 100% certain just close to it, and certain enough they believe there is no contamination. Coupled with every other test done showing 100% human .. yeah sorry this is a dead horse. 100% human.
edit on 13-6-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join