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.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
If it is proof then why are these results "preliminary"?
I'll wait for final results before calling anything proof.
I;ve followed the starchild skull case for a long time now.
A few more weeks for definitive results is worth waiting for.
Yet, this is incredible news.
S&F DCDAVE
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.
BOOM!
Originally posted by thepainweaver
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
If it is proof then why are these results "preliminary"?
I'll wait for final results before calling anything proof.
I;ve followed the starchild skull case for a long time now.
A few more weeks for definitive results is worth waiting for.
Yet, this is incredible news.
S&F DCDAVE
The phrase "preliminary results" in science doesn't necessarily mean something negative, or the conclusion is premature.
Usually, when the phrase "preliminary results" is used it means that there is further testing going on or "more to come", e.g., more questions are being "tested", more data is being analyzed, the data has yet to be confirmed by another lab, or usually the results have yet to be published.
Basically, a geneticist posting this claim should have more than enough evidence to make/back this conclusion, even though the paperwork that makes it official might still be in the shuffle-dance. And if they don't have said evidence, and this is all just a bunch of inductive-reasoning-garbage, they should be working at a Mcdonalds and not a multi-million dollar facility because that is not science.