Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 5/15/02 Steve Barbour wrote: >yup, dicey is an understatement.... as in ...."we need an eyewitness >(wrong well over half the time) to vouch for the credibility of DNA >fingerprinting, which is "right" to the tune of 99.99999999 %.... or >so."..... Steve Which doesn't mean didly in the context of this conversation. Suppose someone handed you a print that is alledged to be from granny's photo collection taken in Dallas "that morning" that shows a man firing from the grassy knoll. You're just going to believe it, right? I don't think so. In fact I'm not sure WHAT sort of photographic evidence I'm willing to believe any more. I'd find a piece of video tape possibly more believable because, in general, faking motion and getting it right is quite difficult, much more difficult than doing a single image has become. DNA fingerprinting, of course, involves a chain of custody with well understood protections built into it. LAPD notwithstanding. Adam - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html