To Answer Some Questions on DNA Tests

 

It has been claimed by documentary makers that a DNA lab tested a hair and it was 99.9% positive for leopard. The question: why was there not 100% positive test results?

When it comes to labs that carry out DNA testing none declare that they do not want to be named. Firstly, publicity over testing can bring in business but none seem to want to hide who they are as that gives an indication that they are not confident in their testing. If the lab was paid to carry out a test on a hair sample then not naming the lab means that you have zero evidence. That is a fact as I can claim that I have 5 hair samples that tested positive at a DNA lab for snow leopard. I cannot name the lab. That means my claim is as valid as 99.9% positive for a leopard.  

To make a scientific claim your evidence has to be available for peer review by another lab so any claims are null and void.

The other thing is that a lab provides you with data such as can be seen below. This is basic data to back up any claim.

Look at what it says with 7 in that list.

So we really need to see the DNA report for clarification of the test results since in the 1990s when I was working with UK police forces one search of a big cat sighting locale (inside a caravan/trailer) found one black hair and the lab checked and DNA was 100% panthera pardus -leopard. Other hair samples were also positively identified by DNA labs. 

Below is something else that a DNA test lab will send. Again, this is something experts can check and then ask the lab for clarification on. 

These are two basic pieces of evidence that could back up a claim even though such a test result would be nothing new. WHY has the documentary maker not released these items?  You do not even have to include the lab name (although never revealing that damages any claim).

Rather like the known hoax photo that was claimed as evidence the DNA claims mean nothing.; We know these cats are out there and there is more than enough evidence from just the 1990s and early 2000s so a positive DNA claim is nothing sensational. 

We've had them before. We have the photographic evidence of a puma attack on a horse as well as livestock (sheep) kills, scratch posts, scat and even bones of prey analysed by experts and shown to have teeth markings from a large predatory cat.