Planted Lynx Fur In Habitat Survey Upsets Legislators bureacrats {Congress can be so easily led}

Associated Press ^ | Monday, December 31, 2001 | Associated Press

[jennyp]

I understand your attempt at rationally de-fusing this situation,

THANK YOU!

however, you are wrong and illogical on a number of points.

1.) It is never OK to falsify data. The data was not identified as "control" during the testing. This is never OK - except for typical liberal junk science.

Agreed.

2.) If they were worried that the previous test found too many of this type animal, which was their premise, then the reason would have to be that the lab was mis-identifying a different type of fur as belonging to this species. Thus, you would send in bobcat fur, or whatever, that is similar, to see if the lab mis-identified this fur as the subject fur. In other words, their excuse is illogical, based on their premise that too many of the subject were initially found.

aHA! Good point. Hmmm... That does lower my opinion of the biologists even more. If they really were concerned about false positives, then they were really really stupid to test them with lynx hair. But since there were 7 of them from 3 different bureaucracies, having all of them do the same test, flawed in the same way, does not make sense, even if we assume the incompetent gravitate to gov't work. So that really does hurt the credibility of that version of the story, doesn't it? Hmmmmm...

[zip]

Yum, candian lynx, tasty

Oh yeah. they taste just like spotted owl if cooked right. LOL

[zip]

I think that linked article from the Seattle Times is just an attempt to save-face for the scientists... this has obviously gotten too mixed up to make sense of.

Which makes it glaringly apparent that environmental scientists and organizations will never be known for following credible science. With messes & scandals like this one, it is obvious that you can never trust anything they say.

42 posted on 12/31/01 9:03 PM Pacific by RobertFrost [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: RobertFrost "just an attempt to save-face for the scientists..." Sorry, but they're not scientists, they're liars. 43 posted on 12/31/01 9:06 PM Pacific by editor-surveyor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: expose Why are they not fired right now? 44 posted on 12/31/01 9:06 PM Pacific by MissAmericanPie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: RobertFrost Environmental scientists will do anythings for there Agenda 45 posted on 12/31/01 9:07 PM Pacific by expose

These posts are worth repeating. They are exactly on target.

Thanks Robert Frost, expose, editor-surveyor, and MissAmericanPie

[MissAmericanPie]

Let's keep this bumped if we can.

[expose]

bump

[expose]

Author under fire on accuracy of gun research

[Leisler]

Why do you have to go up a mountian, to the scratch posts, pull the hair out of a envelope, put the false lynx hair on it, take it off the post, put in in another envelope, go back down the mountian, and submit the "sample"? Wouldn't it make more sense to just hand in various envelopes, false and positive, and compare the lab results with what you know? The behaviour of these guys is like someone caught in a prostitution sting who says they were doing "research". Yeah, right.

[Leisler]

Yea, well millions of lumbermen, millmen, truckers and townspeople have lost their jobs and lumber has gotten expensive nationwide, but look on the positive side. Losts of rich, liberal, urban professionals have been able to buy vacation homes and more acreage now that rural economies and cultures have collapsed. Men can now get jobs cleaning rooms and serving sushi.

[headsonpikes]

gubmint science bump.

[Navy Patriot]

Re:#80. Your point about two conflicting sets of facts is valid. It appears from posts on this thread that your position that there are two conflicting explanations for the actions of these "scientists" is reasonable.

So, we investigate, ok, maybe we will get the truth eventually.

In the meantime we can analyze the reports as a whole to see what we get in the field of logic. The report of planting Lynx hair specified an uncomplicated process that would result in large rewards in power and prestiege for those involved (assuming it went undetected). The report of a bungled control sample check of the lab is one of a very complicated and intricate series of coincidences that just happen to make innocent, earnest, scientists look like criminals.

Occam's Razor is a principle that holds that the most simple explanation is probably correct for any event. It seems that with every new version of this story from the "scientists", it gets more complicated. I can't PROVE it at this time, I CAN logic it.

[expose]

freedom

[sandydipper]

My Ma always said that you should get the beam outa your eye before you try to find the grain of sand in your buddy's eye.

Point is that corruption is rampant in Congress and they want to fire a fish and game person who may be telling the truth about a friggin wild cat. Anybody needs firin' it's that guy from NJ - Tourtuchelli.

[zip]

Thanks for the flag. I pinged BOBWADE on this one also.

[RobertFrost]

thanks zip.

here's another one worth repeating:

Why do you have to go up a mountian, to the scratch posts, pull the hair out of a envelope, put the false lynx hair on it, take it off the post, put in in another envelope, go back down the mountian, and submit the "sample"? Wouldn't it make more sense to just hand in various envelopes, false and positive, and compare the lab results with what you know? The behaviour of these guys is like someone caught in a prostitution sting who says they were doing "research". Yeah, right.

87 posted on 1/2/02 3:00 AM Pacific by Leisler

Took the words right out of my mouth.