Starchild bump

originally posted by: damwel
I thought this had been finally debunked. Didn't the Dan analysis end up showing that Starchilds parents were human?

Sorry man...you thought wrong!

All I've seen is the pseudo-skeptics attempt to debunk, and when that fails they try to sweep it all under a rug...like this round...

So, no...it's never been "debunked", nor has there ever been any serious science "exceptions" (you do know what I mean by "exception"...like an "error")

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: damwel
I thought this had been finally debunked. Didn't the Dan analysis end up showing that Starchilds parents were human?

Sorry man...you thought wrong!

All I've seen is the pseudo-skeptics attempt to debunk, and when that fails they try to sweep it all under a rug...like this round...

So, no...it's never been "debunked", nor has there ever been any serious science "exceptions" (you do know what I mean by "exception"...like an "error")

It can't be "debunked" because Pye never released the analysis.

He simply made a claim about it.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: damwel
I thought this had been finally debunked. Didn't the Dan analysis end up showing that Starchilds parents were human?

Sorry man...you thought wrong!

All I've seen is the pseudo-skeptics attempt to debunk, and when that fails they try to sweep it all under a rug...like this round...

So, no...it's never been "debunked", nor has there ever been any serious science "exceptions" (you do know what I mean by "exception"...like an "error")

It can't be "debunked" because Pye never released the analysis.

He simply made a claim about it.

Harte

Oh is that really the case? Or is it more like they didn't release the results you wanted?

I've viewed the starchild website; and I've seen lots of real results there...poor explanation of those results, but, then again...the results were right there, and with a little work anyone can interpret those result for themselves.

And, it is real amazing; when One does learn enough to interpret those result; One learns that the Starchild isn't quite Human...

One will also realize that while the results available on the website aren't complete, there is more than ample data to make a determination.

But, it does require that One actually do their "due diligence" and learn new things...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: damwel
I thought this had been finally debunked. Didn't the Dan analysis end up showing that Starchilds parents were human?

Sorry man...you thought wrong!

All I've seen is the pseudo-skeptics attempt to debunk, and when that fails they try to sweep it all under a rug...like this round...

So, no...it's never been "debunked", nor has there ever been any serious science "exceptions" (you do know what I mean by "exception"...like an "error")

It can't be "debunked" because Pye never released the analysis.

He simply made a claim about it.

Harte

Oh is that really the case? Or is it more like they didn't release the results you wanted?

I've viewed the starchild website; and I've seen lots of real results there...poor explanation of those results, but, then again...the results were right there, and with a little work anyone can interpret those result for themselves.

And, it is real amazing; when One does learn enough to interpret those result; One learns that the Starchild isn't quite Human...

One will also realize that while the results available on the website aren't complete, there is more than ample data to make a determination.

But, it does require that One actually do their "due diligence" and learn new things...

Actually, Pye put up a photo of a lab report - with no info about the lab.

The lab report stated one of the genetic codes was unknown.

The lab report was an online report since it contained a live link.

The link was to an explanation of what was meant by that "unknown."

Since Pye conveniently left out this info, then, yes, everyone is able to interpret it however they want, since information is missing. Like I said.

Harte

originally posted by: damwel
I thought this had been finally debunked.

It has been, but some people just must believe it is alien....

Didn't the Dan analysis end up showing that Starchilds parents were human?

Yes, but facts never stopped people wanting to believe it is alien!

a reply to: Harte

While it is true that little data has been released...the site I visited, this evening, has ample data, plenty to make an intelligent determination.

I'm thinking that the real issue is that the reports aren't what you want, so, you condemn them for the compilers use of the unfamiliar. Without understanding that some sciences, technologies and industries may support protocols that you are unfamiliar with. This is "WHY" One must be ready to learn new things...

a reply to: tanka418

Except all the data that is released, including DNA testing, 100% conclusively proves both the mother and father are human. It was after that that the Starchild money grabbers began hiding data and releasing on the parts they like.

It's a proven fraud.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

Except all the data that is released, including DNA testing, 100% conclusively proves both the mother and father are human. It was after that that the Starchild money grabbers began hiding data and releasing on the parts they like.

It's a proven fraud.

Show the data!

I've looked at the current / available data...it does not say "Human"...

a reply to: tanka418

Where's this "current data" you keep going on about? Oh, that's right, there is none. All there is is someone saying what the data supposedly says, you never see the raw data.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

Except all the data that is released, including DNA testing, 100% conclusively proves both the mother and father are human. It was after that that the Starchild money grabbers began hiding data and releasing on the parts they like.

It's a proven fraud.

Show the data!

I've looked at the current / available data...it does not say "Human"...

You really need me to dig up the multiple starchild threads from ATS rather than look it up yourself?

It's not like I have not sourced this to you before. I remember when you told me non-random sampling was a valid way to extrapolate results.

I have already sourced all this to you before. You show up in every Starchild thread and just ignore all the evidence. I imagine you will do so once again.

Human X and human Y chromosomes mean .... ? Human child.

The result is X-Y and this tells us two significant things. First, the child was male; second, the DNA is human.

To obtain a sex determination of "male" means readings were obtained from both "X" and "Y" chromosomes in the Starchild's DNA. From a genetic standpoint that means it received its X chromosome(s) from a human mother and its Y chromosome(s) from a human father. From a forensic standpoint, even though virtually nothing else is known about the construction of the Starchild's DNA, with X and Y chromosomes present, all of its finer details, if ever known, would inevitably prove to be human.

www.rense.com...

Mother was 100% human from haplogroup C. Trace Genetics 2003 test.

The sample taken from the Starchild Skull (SCS-1) has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone.

So 100% human father and 100% human mother = ... you tell me.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

Except all the data that is released, including DNA testing, 100% conclusively proves both the mother and father are human. It was after that that the Starchild money grabbers began hiding data and releasing on the parts they like.

It's a proven fraud.

Show the data!

I've looked at the current / available data...it does not say "Human"...

You really need me to dig up the multiple starchild threads from ATS rather than look it up yourself?

It's not like I have not sourced this to you before. I remember when you told me non-random sampling was a valid way to extrapolate results.

I have already sourced all this to you before.

Uh-huh...

What I've seen does not say the skull was "Human"...

Plus; yes I do remember your wee bit about "non-random sampling"...you misconstrue that as well...

In any case please provide data that indicates the skull is "Human"...

a reply to: tanka418

Please provide us with this raw data, you say you have, showing it is not human. Not someone interpretation, not someone saying it, the actual raw data.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Where's this "current data" you keep going on about? Oh, that's right, there is none. All there is is someone saying what the data supposedly says, you never see the raw data.

Firstly, that data is on the website...
Second; Do you know how doubtful it is that you can handle the raw data? That however, is not an excuse to not include that data...
Third; Some of that raw data is available on the website...enough to make a scientific determination.

But, it is quite likely that yo will have to do some learning...

a reply to: tanka418

So we have 100% human DNA but somehow you read that as "not human"? Can you explain?

a reply to: tanka418

I don't care about some. I want the full raw data.

BTW, I can read raw DNA test data quite well, but thanks for your concern.

a reply to: TerryDon79

They will never release it. When they were up front and honest every test came back 100% human. They know it's not alien now and need to keep the charade up to make money.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I know.

It's funny how in the BOLD tests Pye gets told exactly what it is yet he still carries on with the misinformation.

a reply to: TerryDon79

BOLD and Trace Genetics both conclude the DNA is 100% human.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah, I meant BOLD. I don't know why I put Rense lol.

So that's the 1999 tests and the 2003 both saying its human. Yet somehow Pye (and some others) think it's alien.

I don't get it.