From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 21:25:29 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@ocean.com.au> wrote:
> > Seems "the world" is still awaiting proof on two propositions :
> >
> > Notable, in the Clonaid case, is that around 11 days have passed
> > since the birth of the alleged clone and no proof has been presented.
>
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....
Completely agree.
> Furthermore, if the Church of Government were intent on
> Inquisitioning you for acting on such science (as was done 500
> years ago in another science that challenged the powers that
> be), you'd be circumspect about offering up proof of your guilt.
Also completely agree.
In my post "Calling Cloniad's bluff with PCR, pubic hair and
placental tissue". I offered a possible way by which Clonaid might
prove the existence of a clone WITHOUT having to identify the
parent. Perhaps not this time but next time when they have another
placenta.
I suggested that the placenta (which would only be available to
Clonaid) in the case of a birth (and which could be used to collect
DNA from) as well as some tissue that would only occur in the
state of a mature individual (I suggested pubic hair) could be sent
to a lab. If the same DNA is in both tissue samples from two clearly
different aged individuals (babies don't have pubic hair) then that
would look like pretty good proof of existence, so far as I can see,
and there would be *no need* to expose the parent to the govt
at all, she could stay anonymous.
As it turns out though, pubic hair may not be sufficiently different
from other types of body hair (according to a guy I rang at the
state forensic pathology lab). Some other age specific tissue might
be possible. A large thumb or toe nail clipping, ie. too large to come
from and infant might work. Perhaps even if the mother has very
long hair (too long for an infant) that might work.
I'd like to put this proposition to Clonaid to get them to put up or
shut up as the press they are generating seems likely to harm the
stem cell debate. It Michael Shermer of the Skeptics feeling now
that it is almost certainly a hoax and I agree.
> >
> > Meanwhile despite having 25,000 US troops in the Gulf and another
> > 75,000 on the way, despite Britain and now apparently France
> > preparing
> > to send troops as well, the weapons inspectors have still not found
> > any evidence of WMD, no evidence (at least that I have heard of)
> > has been presented linking Hussein to terrorist acts since the last
> > Gulf war.
>
> Ditto on rules of evidence as above.
Again agreed.
> There is in fact evidence of
> concealment in that significant quantities of chemical and biotoxins
> known to be in inventory in 1998 are not accounted for in Iraq's
> most recent Declaration to the Security Council. They have
> disappeared from the tally, and Iraq refuses to disclose what
> happened to them.
I did hear something about that. That is suggestive but not
conclusive imo. What is the shelf life of the particular chemicals and
biotoxins I wonder? Would they not have degraded? Still the paper
trail should be there one would think, unless some of the scientists
involved with the program destroyed the paper trail and the evidence
perhaps years before the current "calling to account".
I agree that this missing information *is* suggestive. But its not enough
imo to justify invading a sovereign country. A failure to explain what
they did (sometime since 1998) with what they had then, doesn't
equate to either having WMD now, or to Iraq having dealt with
terrorists since the last gulf war. I think one or both of these would
be necessary to justify invading a sovereign country. And one or both
of these *may* yet be found. Or may have already been found and
Bush may be chosing his time to disclose what he has.
> Just because someone hides something very well from you does
> not mean it doesn't exist.
True. But alleging something exists and then failing to find it or show
that one has found it doesn't prove it exists to others either.
> If your ability to discover it is entirely dependent
> upon their cooperation and disclosure, when they are not
> interested in doing so, then you will never find what you are
> looking for.
But surely it is not *entirely* dependent upon cooperation. Spy
satelights, spy's, informants, members of Saddams inner sanctum
who can read the writing on the wall and want to escape going
down with him. There are lots of sources of info Bush may have,
some of which may be too unsavory to tell the sensitive public
about. Particularlty given the sensitivity in some quarters about
where the bio-material for some of the weapons Hussein had came
from before. I don't think Rumsfeld or anyone else close to the
President wants to be seen getting info on Iraq from the next
batch of unsavvory characters. But I don't doubt they'll take what
ever evidence they can get, and present it at a time a place of
their choosing, not the UNs, and not Saddam's.
> >
> > It seems that a whole lot of people are getting dressed up
> > who are going to be very disappointed to have no place to go.
>
> If you think they are not going anywhere, you are mistaken.
I did go into more detail as to why in my reply to Charles Hixon.
But suffice to say I regard it as almost 100% certain now that they
are going to invade Iraq. Imo, politically, Bush has no other
effective choice now. I think that he would loose the next
Presidential election if he did not invade Iraq. That doesn't
mean that an invasion is justified imo though. Imo the case for an
invasion has still to be made.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST