Starchild bump

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

The evidence is on his own website. Your bias must have missed it.

Didn't find it...perhaps your understanding is a bit off?

The only time the contamination wasn't there was when tests were done "in house".

As for saying there is no contamination? That's dishonest.

No, what's dishonest is pretending that you have any understanding what-so-ever of this case, the nature of the data, the contamination, etc. That comment above more than adequately demonstrates that you are at a complete loss as to the understanding of this dataset.

a reply to: tanka418

So I'm guessing you're still saying there was no contamination and no possible way that there could be any DNA degradation?

Must have been one hell of a clean mine. Must have been cut off from all the elements too. Temperature and humidity must have been kept at a constant low aswell. All for 800 (+ -) years.

And the person who found it must have worn gloves. Then the person after that. Then Pye and his team. For the further 100 (+ -) years.

Sounds plausible.

originally posted by: tanka418
No, what's dishonest is pretending that you have any understanding what-so-ever of this case, the nature of the data,

No one has any understanding of the data. There is no data. There are conclusions drawn about claimed data that is never revealed, nor the names of the people who gathered it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So I'm guessing you're still saying there was no contamination and no possible way that there could be any DNA degradation?

Must have been one hell of a clean mine. Must have been cut off from all the elements too. Temperature and humidity must have been kept at a constant low aswell. All for 800 (+ -) years.

And the person who found it must have worn gloves. Then the person after that. Then Pye and his team. For the further 100 (+ -) years.

Sounds plausible.

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth, so to speak...

I never said those things.

a reply to: tanka418

You said there was no contamination.

I just proved that there must have been, unless the conditions I set out above were met.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
No, what's dishonest is pretending that you have any understanding what-so-ever of this case, the nature of the data,

No one has any understanding of the data. There is no data. There are conclusions drawn about claimed data that is never revealed, nor the names of the people who gathered it.

Here,,,some of the data that doesn't exist...



This details the 17 anomalies in the mtDNA...or rather would IF it existed...

And it's nice to see you question who the people involved are:

Melanie Young
Matthew Brownstein
Dr. Ted Robinson

From the website...

a reply to: tanka418

So where are the other mtDNA tests to prove that it wasn't just a degraded or contaminated sample?

a reply to: tanka418

No data. Claims and conclusions. I checked those 3 names, NONE of them appear at all. The website flat out states they are hiding the names, I sourced it.

www.starchildproject.com...

The identity of certain research team members requires temporary anonymity. Their names will be revealed when they are ready to formally release reports for peer scrutiny.

2010 DNA Testing & Results:
A geneticist from an established and well-accredited research facility in the U.S.A.

No name attached.

Early in 2011, the geneticist sequenced some fragments from the Starchild Skull DNA sample

If you look back, every single reputable person and lab is mentioned by name .. until we get to the "new data" where everything is hidden.

Keep trying.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

No data. Claims and conclusions. I checked those 3 names, NONE of them appear at all. The website flat out states they are hiding the names, I sourced it.

www.starchildproject.com...

The identity of certain research team members requires temporary anonymity. Their names will be revealed when they are ready to formally release reports for peer scrutiny.

2010 DNA Testing & Results:
A geneticist from an established and well-accredited research facility in the U.S.A.

No name attached.

Early in 2011, the geneticist sequenced some fragments from the Starchild Skull DNA sample

If you look back, every single reputable person and lab is mentioned by name .. until we get to the "new data" where everything is hidden.

Keep trying.

Sorry bout the names, etc. However, The Starchild Project people are under absolutely NO obligation to release that information.

If I were the manager of that project, I wouldn't release any of that either,,, for security reasons...

Then there is the reality that you don't really need to know the name of a "button pusher"...which is about the extent of Human involvement...

Something you might want to know is "who" is managing the project...and you can get that from their IP registrar...it is public information after all...

Oh, and the data you so desperately seek...plenty right there on the site...you just have to go "mining" for it...

originally posted by: tanka418
If I were the manager of that project, I wouldn't release any of that either,,,

Of course they will not, as they know it is human, and their money would dry up!

a reply to: tanka418

There's one mtDNA sample with 17 anomolies. Where's the other mtDNA test results showing it wasn't from degraded mtDNA or contamination?

The only data there is is that one mtDNA result, nothing else.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
If I were the manager of that project, I wouldn't release any of that either,,,

Of course they will not, as they know it is human, and their money would dry up!

I think it is fairly well demonstrated that it is not Human...

Despite the poor analysis by some, it seems rather conclusive, that its Mother was not Human, I haven't look at any data to indicate what Father was...but, logically, he was not human either.

a reply to: tanka418

So one mtDNA result means that neither the mother or father are human?

Wheres all the data to prove this?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

There's one mtDNA sample with 17 anomolies. Where's the other mtDNA test results showing it wasn't from degraded mtDNA or contamination?

The only data there is is that one mtDNA result, nothing else.

Hey...I have this crumbly, cakey sort of yellow substance. I took it to a chemist; he says it Sulfur...do you think it need to have it tested by someone else?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

There's one mtDNA sample with 17 anomolies. Where's the other mtDNA test results showing it wasn't from degraded mtDNA or contamination?

The only data there is is that one mtDNA result, nothing else.

Hey...I have this crumbly, cakey sort of yellow substance. I took it to a chemist; he says it Sulfur...do you think it need to have it tested by someone else?

How many anomolies showed up?

This is how real science works. You do an mtDNA test, you find anomolies, you do more tests from other parts of the same object to find out if it was contaminated or degraded. If the answer is no, you conduct other tests to determine the reason for the anomolies.

What you don't do is one test, find anomolies and shout aliens.

ETA: They ran the tests again in 1999 because of contamination. They found it was a male from haplogroup c. That means a human male. The reason they found that out is because they used the proper scientific method of retesting.

a reply to: tanka418

BTW, are you still saying the skull wasn't contaminated?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

BTW, are you still saying the skull wasn't contaminated?

This is the perfect example of you not knowing jackS...

I never said that, except perhaps in your fantasies...

Oh on the "test stuff" you were mumbling...my Wolf says you are wrong; and I do believe he has more science caught in his fur that you have been exposed to.

Perhaps if you weren't quite so disruptive with your prattling and spouting of faux science we all could learn something new.

a reply to: tanka418

So the 1999 tests and 2010 tests that proved that a, there was contamination and b, it was a human male is dismissed because it doesn't fit with your bias.

BTW where's the data? One mtDNA result does not prove anything.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So the 1999 tests and 2010 tests that proved that a, there was contamination and b, it was a human male is dismissed because it doesn't fit with your bias.

BTW where's the data? One mtDNA result does not prove anything.

The 1999 test were indeed contaminated, and the results show that...can you explain how/why there was contamination then and why is no longer an issue. You need to understand that 1999 results are invalid due to contamination.

The 2010 results show nothing of the kind...it is only your bias and inability to understand this data that causes you to misinterpret the data.

As I've said before; I have no bias on this case...probably "why" I'm not taken in by misinterpretation...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So the 1999 tests and 2010 tests that proved that a, there was contamination and b, it was a human male is dismissed because it doesn't fit with your bias.

BTW where's the data? One mtDNA result does not prove anything.

In as much as one DNA result is enough to end your life; I'd say it is more than enough to demonstrate a life.