http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
Unless they were lying intentionally, the DNA work done was what seemed to me to be the best evidence for a culprit so far.
There are a host of possibilities besides outright lying as to why this should be suspect.
They were all circumstantial, this is too, but it has the added weight of DNA that no one else yet has.
It *may* have the added weight of DNA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
Why are you attempting to divert attention from your lack of ability to answer questions about your beliefs?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
If someone predicted the date of the end of the world, wait until the date given, and then decide whether it is conclusively legitimate. If nothing materializes (or dematerializes) it is inconclusively illegitimate. Not a difficult concept to grasp.
You've managed to completely miss the point. Apparently it was more difficult than you thought.
But I think we are digressing from the thread, but you seem to like that.
We're discussing why you would consider something with such sketchy details legitimate. You've not been able to answer that, so I'm attempting to use analagous examples to help move the conversation along and gain a better understanding of how you evaluate evidence.
Of all the books I've read, and documentaries I've watched, dealing with the subject, this is the best explanation yet.
Why, with such looming questions about the legitimacy, the evidence and the methods?
I also believe it was quite brilliantly done.
Again, why, with such looming questions about the legitimacy, the evidence and the methods?
This remains my personal view, whether you like it or not.
I don't like it or not like it. I'm far more interested in why someone would form that opinion given the complete lack of reason to do so from an evidence standpoint.
once she sets her mind on something there is no talking her out of it.. it is similar when a cult member posts on this forum..
How is a stubborn child the same as a cult member?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
I allow for the benefit of the doubt until their work is disproved.
Why? Would you do the same with someone predicting the end of the world, claiming they really honestly scout's honor decoded the date this time? Why would you wait for something this lacking in evidence to be disproved when it's in no way been proved?
Did I, or anybody for that matter, use the word "conclusive?" I think you are first and only poster to use the word in this thread.
You are 100% correct. Consider my question changed to "why do you consider this legitimate?". It's a distinction without a difference. Given the lack of details and evidence, why do you consider this legitimate, particualy considering all of the competing claims out there? Why does which word I mean make a difference here?
Read the article through for their modus operandi.
You shouldn't assume I didn't read the article. It could possibly be where my questions came from. I know, crazy, right, to read the subject matter before developing questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
That's my question. Without those details and verification by other scientists, what makes you say this is conclusive?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
Ok, but how does *this* seem conclusive?
1) Shawl of unknown origin
2) Armchair detective manages to predict how all of this will turn out
3) No idea how the DNA was extracted, how the descendants DNA was obtained, the quality of the sample or even what type of DNA was involved
4) No published results for others to test and replicate
5) Crytpic messages that leaves convenient clues
6) This was in the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
How does this seem conclusive?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.
to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.
metatron.
Absolutely. This story is one impossible chance and stroke of luck after another after an armchair detective had to vision to see that this all might work, after every one else missed it. It's even got cryptic clues and foreshadowing. Seems totes legit.
has anyone had success with a high traffic website or blog ?.
it might take a team of people to accomplish.. ads pay and people count, lots and lots of people.
does jehovahs-witness.net make money every time someone looks at the web site?
Not mine :)
