The Osama DNA thread

[ladmo]

You should listen more carefully or user a different news service.

I am referring to skepticism... as an aside, I am in the Carribbean on vacation and have only caught the JREF Forum for most of my information. Maybe I was incorrect in choosing my sources.



[QUOTE}CNN reported that he was buried at sea because having him buried on dry ground would create a place to make a shrine for him as a martyr.
He was buried according to Islamic traditions, a far cry from what was done to 3000 people on his behalf. Did OBL say a prayer for those victims, did any of his compatriots? I doubt it.{/QUOTE]

I agree but I am not sure what your comment has to do with his burial. Do not equate my questioning to bin laden's actions, that would be a sophmoric response. Frankly, I would love to see his body wrapped in bacon roasted in a pit next to a pig.

[/QUOTE]As for LGR's question; wait a few days, more info will likely be released. What is clear is athat a full DNA sequencing was not done or required. They compared only those parts of the DNA that are common to relatives of his. They combined this with facial recognition tech and conclude that it was him. Perhaps a more complete DNA sequence is being undertaken but that takes, IIRC, weeks.[/QUOTE]

We already have his DNA, there is nothing to wait for.

 

[tsig]

Osama Bin Laden's death seems to only reinforce and confirm alot of truthers beliefs in terms of 911.

The fact that he was killed without being held for an international trial only serves to confirm the ideas of a cover up.

I fully understand and support why the US killed and buried his body at sea. Yet truther will not comprehend this and only see it as a cover up.

I predict that more fence sitters may be swung to the truther side.

Anyone who's on the fence about 911 has either not been paying attention to the facts or are actively denying them.

 

[tsig]

I can see this saga overtaking and outlasting the JFK, moon landings and even 911 ct nuts. The bogeyman and his DNA will be a hoot for years to come. lol.
Those members of his family who denounce OBL and live abroad can confirm that DNA was taken from them to match his. Indeed, they have previously done so already. Members of his family that were inside the compound (his live wife and live 12 year old daughter) will also be confirming to the Pakistani authorities who the 6' 4" man they lived with was and how he died.

'Real time' footage of the mission has convinced those who need convincing that he was there and was shot dead, regardless of the whoooha about him being armed or not. lol. If he had been armed he would be riddled with brass/lead rather than just the reported two taps to the head (which is SOP and expected). Dead is dead........armed or not. lol.

The USA had the forthought to confirm with DNA. The smart thing to do to ensure that they wernt chasing a bogeyman forever.

They have done that to the 99.9% clarity that DNA can produce.

They videoed and phoytographed his body in Afghanistan and at the burial site just before they gave him to the sharks. I hope they caught a feading frenzy too.

Edit- Forgot the facial recognition technology they are said to have used too. Save from stringing him up like a fishermans photo shoot with a shark I see no other form of identification required. Alas, truthers want to pull his beard, test his voice and shake his left hand to be convinced. Perhaps a scuba diving course somewhere in the middle east is on the cards, looking for a white sack and a few bricks. lol.



Yet something tells me that this will roll on and on and on. OBL will appear beside Elvis, Joplin and Mr Mojo Risin at a Wallmart near you very soon. lol.

Strange sense of humor.

 

[000063]

I've spent some time today arguing on AboveTopSecret with someone who keeps insisting the DNA tests are unreliable because they may be tainted. I have pointed out that she has no evidence to prove it, and she keeps insisting she's being rational and skeptical. I ask why the DNA test is reliable in every other case except this one. She says I'm being unreasonable. I explain the value of precedent using an analogy involving hot dog relish.

At this point, she's been reduced to calling me a troll.

Good times.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

I explain the value of precedent using an analogy involving hot dog relish.

I don't think I've heard that one...

 

[000063]

I don't think I've heard that one...

There's a hot dog stand outside my workplace. I eat there every Tuesday for five years because I like their relish. I assume, each visit, that the relish is going to be the same. Unless I receive evidence that the hot dog I eat this Tuesday is different from any other Tuesday, or I actually bite into the hot dog and the relish is different, this is a reasonable assumption.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread697397/pg29#pid11251346

The analogy is pointing out how she was only doubting Osama's DNA ID, but not that of other terrorists or Saddam Hussein.

The person I was arguing with, well, see for yourself. Notice how they miss my point entirely.

There also the guy who seems determined to prove I'm some sort of "disinformation agent" from "MSM". Or the gov't. He doesn't seem to be too sure. As evidence, he cited my use of "dollars" in an analogy, despite me claiming, truthfully, I was outside the US. I linked to the Wikipedia page showing how many countries use the dollar. He tried to wheedle my true location out of me, and I told him to give up.

 

[A W Smith]

baby.. BABY! baby!... snaaaakes

btw, I am a huge Zappa fan.

We may be similar in our definition and only differ without a distinction. If someone does not have an opinion on this situation he/she is either disengaged with the entire bin laden background or the person has knowledge and just doesn't care. Skepticism needs a baseline... a person can be a skeptic while capturing additional information, in fact, that may be the ultimate approach.

There is in between as well. Some knowledge, some interest. I see now that they wont be releasing any photos of Bin Laden, The reasons are they dont want to "spike the ball" . Those who have been in position to see the photos confirm that it is him. They even address the conspiracy theorists doubts by saying they will just be accused of Photoshopping the images. A classic moving of the goalposts just like the birthers did when the long form was released. I think most can agree that the conspiracy movement has been marginalized as no one will even bother to take them seriously and just blow them off.

Did you attend the premier of Baby Snakes in Manhattan on Franks birthday? I got to eat some Zappa snake shaped Birthday cake. I didn't care much for the movie which was nothing more than a maelstrom of concert footage. 200 motels was much better. I used to go to concerts in the seventies but as the venues got bigger it just became a wall of noise and I couldn't hear the lyrics. Which many times were ad libed depending on current events or the venue.

 

[Jackanory]

Strange sense of humor.

Ya have to have one.

Here we are in a thread about DNA and the process in taking it from OBL and how it was handled as if it is a great mystery. No mystery. Just routine.

I can laugh simply because it is a routine occurrence in current theatres of combat and done as routine when the situation permits. Most members of a foot patrol will carry a swab kit for just such a thing. A camera is also carried to enable the quickest verification of visual ID of the dead through local tribal chiefs/police/army etc and as potential Intel for a later date. British military personel have been doing it for quite a few years. Packed in next to your morphine syrets and ammo and in between the boot polish, iPod and socks to stop it rattling. Nothing new here whatsoever yet here we are in 2011 discussing it with complete imbeciles who don’t know there arse from there elbow. Navy SEALS and SAS taking DNA is most definitely expected when possible as they tend to go looking for the 'bigger' targets. Helmet cameras are also used routinely and not just by special forces personel - i.e Bomb Disposal and ATO. Absolutely nothing unusual about what is being reported, unless you live in the basement researching through the internets and being fed by the woo. So yes, I laugh at the stupid.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Here we are in a thread about DNA and the process in taking it from OBL and how it was handled as if it is a great mystery. No mystery. Just routine.

Who has said it was some great mystery? I just asked the details of where it was done.


OK, lets make it even simpler.

What time did Washington have the details of a positive ID from DNA?

 

[beachnut]

Who has said it was some great mystery? I just asked the details of where it was done.


OK, lets make it even simpler.

What time did Washington have the details of a positive ID from DNA?

Why have you failed to find that information? Where did you look? I found it long ago. Try google - wait, I recorded all the news shows, it is there, good luck.
I think it goes like this, bang bang, photo id, clean body, splash, DNA returns, 99.9 percent ULB! Details complete. It could be , DNA returns, splash.

Washington is not president, did you mean Obama?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Why have you failed to find that information? Where did you look? I found it long ago. Try google - wait, I recorded all the news shows, it is there, good luck.
I think it goes like this, bang bang, photo id, clean body, splash, DNA returns, 99.9 percent ULB! Details complete. It could be , DNA returns, splash.

Washington is not president, did you mean Obama?

Basically just anyone in America. Assuming it was tested in Afghanistan, at some time the

Beachnut I am not disputing the fact the media is fill of reports saying 99.9%, but they just don't give details or those details turn out to be wrong. For example, the first report said a sister (actually only a half sister) who died of brain cancer at a Boston hospital - but the hospital has issued a statement saying they had no record of such a person. So an off the record briefing turns out to be false, that is no big deal, it has now been replaced with other off the record briefings.

Let me give you my time frame. Tweets put the helicopters arrival in Abbottabad at 1:00 am local time, that is 4.00 pm Washington time - all times in Washington time

So 4:30 pm depart Abbottabad
approx 6:30 pm arrive Jalabad
Osama bin Laden's body is sent to the Carl Vinson - perhaps around 4 hours away. Reports I have seen said burial at sea began 1.30 am Washington and finished at 2:00 am. So there is enough time to transfer Osama's body - but not enough time to wait for DNA testing.

6:30 pm to 7: 30 pm transfer sample to Bagram - assuming there is a genotyping lab.

9:45 pm White House announces conference
11:40 pm Obama gives press conference

Checking on here, we have an annoucement of DNA confirmation at least by 12:45 am - possibly earlier.

That is barely the five hours which is a minimum needed - which is the quickest a sample could arrive at Bagram. So it is technically possible - if they had an established genotyping facility at Bagram and a technician waiting on stand-by.

Other reports stated that DNA testing took place after the burial at sea and still others said it would be a few days.

So I believe that DNA confirmation was announced in the media before it had been tested - if it was ever tested.

But I quite genuinely believe we are not going to see Osama popping up in the next few months and he really is dead. All I want to know is when and where the testing took place.



6

 

[beachnut]

... So I believe that DNA confirmation was announced in the media before it had been tested - if it was ever tested. ...

I was going to ask you how your thread is worthy of being in the CT section, but this is why, you are not a skeptic, you are a CT guy, who makes up stuff, with nothing. 911, Holocaust, are in your bag of failed claims, will this be the next one?

However, the DNA test in the media could be the kindergarten problem of communication. I could see the DoD saying it will be tested, and the media turning that into it has been tested. Who cares? It has no meaning. UBL is dead, he was a murderer who had others to his work, but he is smarter than 911 truthers, that is not a compliment.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Strange sense of humor.

There's a guy over at DIF who does that thing too, using lol as if it were punctuation.

Freakin' annoying.

 

[little grey rabbit]

However, the DNA test in the media could be the kindergarten problem of communication. I could see the DoD saying it will be tested, and the media turning that into it has been tested. Who cares? It has no meaning. UBL is dead, he was a murderer who had others to his work, but he is smarter than 911 truthers, that is not a compliment.

I agree. I am not making any claim here, all I am asking is there anything on the public record aside from John Brennan saying we are 99.9% certain.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...otos-we-dont-need-to-spike-the-football-.html

Just in point of fact, it appears that DNA testing was not - as I thought possible - used for target verification - ie he was DNA tested before he was killed by an infiltrator who had gained access to his household. I thought it possible that perhaps this vagueness was the result of wishing to conceal intelligence assets

But President Obama seems definite

The following is a transcript of White House press secretary Jay Carney at the top of today’s briefing in which he makes a statement and reads from a transcript of an interview of President Obama with Steve Kroft of CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

“Before I take your questions, I'd just like to say to you that the president has made the decision not to release any of the photographs of the deceased Osama bin Laden….

“The president was asked…when bin Laden's body was taken out of the compound, the president was asked about how they knew it was him.

“And he said: When they landed, we had very strong confirmation at that point that it was him. Photographs had been taken. Facial analysis indicated that, in fact, it was him. We hadn't yet done DNA testing, but at that point we were 95-percent sure.

Given they are using DNA testing as a reason for not releasing photos - surely a slightly detailed description about how the testing was done is in order?

Incidentally, it is really quite easy to fake a DNA match, so whatever the case we always have to rely on trust in the authorities.

So 4 days post mission, we are still lacking any solid information about how the genotyping was done.

 

[beachnut]

...

So 4 days post mission, we are still lacking any solid information about how the genotyping was done.

No, you are lacking information. "We" have information, you are the one lacking in this case. It is your destiny to never have solid information.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Given they are using DNA testing as a reason for not releasing photos -

I challenge your "given". I only heard the reason for not releasing the photos is that they're very grisly and would only stir up trouble. (Also, there may be policies if not actual laws against doing that.)

ETA: Believe it or not, it's unreasonable to expect all irrational CTist demands to be met regardless of the cost.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I challenge your "given". I only heard the reason for not releasing the photos is that they're very grisly and would only stir up trouble. (Also, there may be policies if not actual laws against doing that.)

ETA: Believe it or not, it's unreasonable to expect all irrational CTist demands to be met regardless of the cost.

1. There is no cost in revealing where and how DNA genotyping was done. If they have a state of the art genotyping facility at Bagram - why not say so? What is irrational about asking, when prima facie it appears the media was announcing a DNA match before it was actually possible.

2. You can challenge by "given" if you like. But you can read President Obama's own words when he says release of photos is not necessary because they have done DNA analysis. To date all we have are officials who appear not to understand how relative matching works - ie it can't give a positive ID, but only a relatedness to a person.

“Question: Did you see the pictures?

“The president: Yes.

“Question: What was your reaction when you saw them?

“The president: It was him.

“Question: Why didn't you release them?

“The president: We discussed this internally. Keep in mind that we are absolutely certain that this was him. We've done DNA sampling and testing, and so there is no doubt that we killed Osama bin Laden

Again, all I am asking is when and where the DNA testing was done.

Here is what the New Scientist says

The agency responsible for conducting the analysis is also unconfirmed: media reports have named both FBI and the CIA. Several sources suggested that DNA was subpoenaed from the body of a half-sister of bin Laden, when she reportedly died at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, but the hospital was unable to confirm the report. "There is no evidence she was even here," says spokesperson Sue McGreevey.

FBI special agent Greg Comcowich would not confirm or deny any investigative steps the FBI has taken. When asked whether the agency would release any further information on the DNA analysis, he replied: "Not that I'm aware of."

I don't have a problem with Greg Comcowich not knowing the details. I have a problem that no one at present seems to know the details.

Back in 2004 the FBI seemed to be sending samples back from Afghanistan to the United States - but 2004 is a long time ago
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/t3497_3499.pdf

 

[Jackanory]

1. There is no cost in revealing where and how DNA genotyping was done. If they have a state of the art genotyping facility at Bagram - why not say so? What is irrational about asking, when prima facie it appears the media was announcing a DNA match before it was actually possible.

2. You can challenge by "given" if you like. But you can read President Obama's own words when he says release of photos is not necessary because they have done DNA analysis. To date all we have are officials who appear not to understand how relative matching works - ie it can't give a positive ID, but only a relatedness to a person.




Again, all I am asking is when and where the DNA testing was done.

Here is what the New Scientist says



I don't have a problem with Greg Comcowich not knowing the details. I have a problem that no one at present seems to know the details.

Back in 2004 the FBI seemed to be sending samples back from Afghanistan to the United States - but 2004 is a long time ago
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/t3497_3499.pdf

Oh what a conundrum you create for yourself. Mis interpretaion and chinese whispers by a list of sources who can only speculate as to what, when, where, why and how.

You should be asking the following-

1. Is it possible that DNA for OBL was already held and that this could be the key to the certainty of any future DNA testing?

2. Is it possible that (1) required a fresh sample to confirm?

3. Is it possible that (2) was gathered prior to the mission and was being tested or had been confirmed already?

4. Is it possible that those not in the loop of 'needing to know' misinterpreted (1), (2), (3) and (4) at various stages of the ensuing confusion and hoo ha to get the scoop?

Show the 'real time' footage. Show the SEALs assaulting the compoud. Show the SEALs crashing the helicopter. Show footage of the SEALs putting two bullets in his head. Show footage of the SEALs taking his DNA. Show footage of OBL being taken off the helicopter in Bagram. Afganistan, Timbukto, Ballmory or Skegness. Show footage of him being washed and wrapped in a blanket and dropped into the sea. Show underwater footage of him being systematically eaten by the crabs. Show it all tonight and I guarantee that you and your ilk would still be back tomorrow with your pre disposed nuttyness.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Oh what a conundrum you create for yourself. Mis interpretaion and chinese whispers by a list of sources who can only speculate as to what, when, where, why and how.

You should be asking the following-

1. Is it possible that DNA for OBL was already held and that this could be the key to the certainty of any future DNA testing?

2. Is it possible that (1) required a fresh sample to confirm?

3. Is it possible that (2) was gathered prior to the mission and was being tested or had been confirmed already?

4. Is it possible that those not in the loop of 'needing to know' misinterpreted (1), (2), (3) and (4) at various stages of the ensuing confusion and hoo ha to get the scoop?

Show the 'real time' footage. Show the SEALs assaulting the compoud. Show the SEALs crashing the helicopter. Show footage of the SEALs putting two bullets in his head. Show footage of the SEALs taking his DNA. Show footage of OBL being taken off the helicopter in Bagram. Afganistan, Timbukto, Ballmory or Skegness. Show footage of him being washed and wrapped in a blanket and dropped into the sea. Show underwater footage of him being systematically eaten by the crabs. Show it all tonight and I guarantee that you and your ilk would still be back tomorrow with your pre disposed nuttyness.

Agreed - when there is a desire and ability to deceive, it is not hard to falsify results. DNA testing by STR would be easy to fake by anyone knowledgable in the technology. Or profiles of completely random people who are related to each other could be presented - how could we tell?

So what I am asking is really quite modest.

I want to know the facilty it was tested at and the head of that facility to take responsibility for that testing.

I used to worked in a genotyping laboratory and that is what we did - we used to issue silly "certificates" with the genotyping results and a facisimile signature. But the essence was that our laboratory was saying we certified these results.

 

[Jackanory]

Agreed - when there is a desire and ability to deceive, it is not hard to falsify results. DNA testing by STR would be easy to fake by anyone knowledgable in the technology. Or profiles of completely random people who are related to each other could be presented - how could we tell?

So what I am asking is really quite modest.

I want to know the facilty it was tested at and the head of that facility to take responsibility for that testing.

I used to worked in a genotyping laboratory and that is what we did - we used to issue silly "certificates" with the genotyping results and a facisimile signature. But the essence was that our laboratory was saying we certified these results.

From your response I'm not quite sure what you are agreeing with or what deception in regards to DNA you think I was implying?? DNA is so trivial but it will grip you and your ilk by the bollox for years to come. The only deception I see is those made by the brave pilots and SEAL teams to enure that they got in, got there man and got home safely.

On the other hand you could join the 'KSM is innocent' brigade. I wonder f his DNA was taken.

I would suggest that you re read my post. Was that genotyping laboratory in Basra by any chance .lol