Please provide your thoughts on the forum post below. Agree? Disagree? Please elaborate on your reply. Thank you:

Forensic hair analysis was formerly a go-to for resolving crime and providing evidence in the courtroom. It has existed a standard setting since the 1950s. Today, it is only appropriate for television acting. Hair analysis, even by the top FBI crime labs, has all but been debunked. There are various types of hair analysis, so it does advance as a right way of research. Certain hairs may hold a root or other cells on which DNA testing maybe accomplished. Under these degree, a hair DNA test result is distinguished to the suspect's DNA, and this is conclusive learning. Scientists, in a lab site, strands of hair are mounted on a tiny slide and checked painstakingly. Forensic chemists compare the fiber establish at the crime setting to hair from the suspect. Distinguishing features are look at, in the way that the color, color insight, width, and compositions. From this study, these legal scientists have granted to court judges and juries that this is evidence that it recognizes a specific individual as the defining suspect in the case. Many FBI agents have even testified that the results mean that it recognizes the suspect, and the results prove it to 1 in 10,000 people. Judges and juries alike, have accepted these proofs as controlled truth and have determined that individuals were blameworthy of the misdeed in question. Today, the FBI confesses that it is not skill by any means. No "uniform standard" lives in the study of matching hairs. Scientists have still to decide the exact number of hair traits to see the fact of a match. The numbers that are rejected in court proof over the age of the matches being "1 in 10,000" was completely dishonest. No one legitimately sees, and the idea that almost 25% of the globe has the unchanging hair structure. Decades have passed while the FBI has secondhand junk science results that they pushed upon gullible courts, judges, and juries. Many things have happened unfairly convicted based on these judgments. Comparing hair microscopically can present few evidence towards the identity of a suspect, though it cannot validate it based on a view comparison. It can expect containers or ancestries that are still attributed to the hair, that keep lead straightforwardly to a DNA analysis that take care of finally include or exclude a defendant.