NO LINDA I AM NOT PATRICK LACY BUT HEY! WHAT A COMPLIMENT! HE’S A FAB WRITER, BUT MANY BRIGHT SPARKS WOULD SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WRITING STYLES. HOWEVER JUST BECAUSE I SHOW A LINK TO A SITE OF INTEREST THAT GIVES FACTS TO THE ELVIS ALIVE THEORY DOSE NOT MEAN IT IS HIM. YOU COULD BE RIGHT FOR ONCE(NOT) THAT HE MAY HAVE SENT A COMMENT TO MY BLOG USING A DIFFERENT NAME SO I COULD INFACT GET PEOPLE TO VISIT HIS SITE.(AS IF) LOL!HOW EVER THIS IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AGAIN LINDA? SOMETHING YOU DO A LOT IT SEEMS!!! I COULDN’T CARE LESS THAT HE HASN’T MENTIONED MY BLOG. MY MISSION IS TO GET FACTS OUT THERE REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS OBJECTIVES ARE. THE MORE PEOPLE THAT SEE THE FACTS THE BETTER.ONE LAST THING WE HERE AT COOKCOONEST WOULD LIKE TO SALUT PATRICK LACY FOR HIS GREAT WORK REGARDING FACTS ON ELVIS PRESLEY.WE APPLAUD YOU:-)
WHAT LINDA HOOD SIGMON SAID ON HER WEBSITE
I hear that Patrick Lacey (ALLExperts) continues to slander me and my web site. I have every idea that it was he who was playing the part of “jessePresley” on Twitter. By doing this he was able to convince “my friend” that he was actually the real Elvis/Jesse. This was done partially in an effort to discredit me and my web site. He gave himself away when the very first comment in response to his posting on his blog (of the slanderous material), was someone who recommended Patrick Lacey (AllExperts) as the source to consult for the truth. I contend that Lacey is playing the part of “Sherlock” on the MAD TALK blog now… this after playing the part of jessePresley on Twitter. In other words, that Lacey himself posted the response comment to his own blog entry in order that he could refer readers to his ALLExperts articles.
Lacey has labeled me as “intellectually dishonest”… whatever that is supposed to mean. I absolutely defy anyone to provide proof that anything on my web site is a lie. I have been so very conscious of making sure that everything I write on my site is documented. (Linda Hood Sigmon)
BY THE WAY FOR LINDA &THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT ‘INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST’ MEANS-
Intellectual dishonesty is DISHONESTY in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
RHETORIC may be used to advance an AGENDA or to reinforce one’s deeply held BELIEFS in the face of overwhelming contrary EVIDENCE. If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is IGNORANCE even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed.
Linda You document nothing, your repetitious jargon on this subject and your lack of factual content suggests within your written words a passive and sometimes aggressive approach that leads people to wonder! Yet never know for sure. Your words are so padded with fictitious scenarios that the facts seize to no longer exist. What appears instead is a fabricated story that was born out of a seed of deception planted by a person who uses another person i.e. YOU LINDA -to take on the passive role of LEADER. However you never rise to the occasion. This is not normal for a person who proclaims to be truthful. Your words are quite simply manipulated to come across honest. When in fact what you write is so submissive in ITS NATURE. It relates to one thing only= VERBEL l DIARRHEA
__You manipulate others to choose your way.
__You appear honest but underlying comments confuse.
__You tend towards indirectness with the air of being direct.
__You are self-enhancing but not straight forward about it.
__In win-lose situations you will make the opponent look bad or manipulate it so you win.
__If you don’t get your way you’ll make snide comments or pout and be the victim.
__Others feel confused, frustrated, not sure who you are or what you stand for or what to expect next.
__Others view you in the exchange as someone they need to protect themselves from and fear being manipulated and controlled.
__The outcome is that the goal is avoided or ignored as it cause such confusion or the outcome is the same as with an aggressive or passive style.
__Your underlying belief is that you need to fight to be heard and respected. If that means you need to manipulate, be passive or aggressive, so be it.
INTERESTING ARTICLE ON DNA FABRICATION: Which we thought was a shocking find , that has put into question alot !!!!!
With all this talk of Alice Tiffin aka Eliza Presley seen here on the left, (picture was sent to sent to us by an annonymous person with no message attached) the DNA SITUATION in an article found on a website.
Another site explains how dna can be manipulated: DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.
“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.” John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”
The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification. Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.
The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair. Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood. The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.
From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile. Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.
MORE ON DNA FABRICATION CLICK HERE http://www.makli.com/fabricated-dna-0013603/
Man what can I tell you, I am so shocked by this I can hardly muster the words to express how I feel.We live in a crazy world full of crazy folks who would do anything to gain access into others lives. Shocking! that it now spills over even into fabricating DNA. WHAT NEXT? Man its a scary thought to even WONDER!