The flaw in "The flaws of hair analysis : Longleat Leopard"

Hayley Stevens of BARSoc has posted her thoughts on the analysis of the Longleat Leopard hair done by CFZ member Dr Lars Thomas of Copenhagen University. She has also sought a second opinion by another biologist.

This can be read at http://barsoc.org/2010/10/01/the-flaws-of-hair-analysis-longleat-leopard/

I applaud Hayley in seeking a second opinion, and I find her conclusions interesting, but there are some major flaws in her thinking.

She is only working with the material at hand to make her judgements, that is, the photographs taken of the hair on a monitor. She has shown these images to a "biologist" friend, who claim the hair appears to be from a dog. He then posted images of the hair on an un-named blog where a majority of other members also thought it was dog. The "biologist" wishes to remain anonymous as is his or her right.

Can Hayley not see the problems with this scenario. She often makes comments with regards to people being objective and without an agenda. And of course people have mentioned that Lars Thomas is a member of the CFZ and might have an alterior motive. (although why he would wish to tarnish his academic reputation on his evaluation of a hair found by a non CFZ member is beyond me). Now she wishes us to believe that an unknown person, who she claims is a biologist disagrees with Lars Thomas' findings.

Whilst Lars Thomas made his conclusions based on viewing the hair itself, Ms Stevens is now relying on this unknown person and persons on an unknown forum making conclusions from a photograph that she herself claims cannot be used as evidence, because of the wrong resolution, the wrong light, the wrong camera, the wrong sandwich etc.

Talk about compounding the issue.

How are we to know that Hayley does not have an agenda.

Who is her biologist friend?

Is he/she a real biologist?

What are his/her qualifications?

Is he/she an expert on microscopic hair analysis.

Is he/she an objective expert, or a member of a sceptic organisation.

Why do they wish to remain anonymous?



I'm sorry Hayley but you are making the same errors that you yourself have claimed of others.


The only thing that can really be concluded here is that more evidence is needed. Although if I have to trust an expert, I'd rather trust an expert with known academic credentials who views the evidence in person, rather than an anonymous "biologist" of unknown academic standing and his "mates" (also of unknown academic standing) an online forum making conclusions based on a poor quality photograph of a monitor showing the evidence.