You criticized some of the people that were specific in the way they test their hypothesis to the point of saying, “laughable ways some of the posters test hypothesis.” You suggest there should be a specific standard for testing a hypothesis, but when ask the specific steps you would suggest you only say, “I make every attempt to disprove my hypothesis.” You can only disprove a hypothesis. Because an individual’s testing of his or her hypothesis fails to disprove the hypothesis does not in itself mean the hypothesis is correct. You propose 921 be the standard for fire investigators, but John tried to explain it to you that this document states, “The guidance provided in NFPA 921 puts two conditions on hypothesis testing: It must use deductive reasoning, and it must not violate the laws of physics or contradict any valid data that has been collected.” Are you now not satisfied that this document should be the standard applied to all fire investigators. Are you disputing the information contained in the document. I believe John’s statement is very clear when he stated, “There is no way to specify how to test each of the dozens of hypotheses and sub-hypotheses that are developed in the course of a fire investigation. The current edition of 921 does not do so, nor will the 2008 edition.”

I asked you a simple question, which was, “Do you have specific ways a hypothesis should be tested? I asked you to list these steps specifically. You seem not to want to answer this question with a direct yes or no answer and list the specific steps. I asked you the following three questions, but again you did not chose to respond. “My question what person or group would develop this method to be used? Would this be a strict step by step procedure to be followed? Would these steps be based on the conventional wisdom in fire investigations as to how one should test a hypothesis?”

I have no problem with you having an opinion, but I really wish you would stop making detrimental comments about what others post if you are unwilling to put specific suggestion forward for others to evaluate.