AmeriScan: January 22, 2002
Just another case of non-scientists screaming foul over nothing but their ignorance to simple scientific "tricks" such as a blind control.The USFS and other experts have now determined that the biologists did not plant lynx hairs in the field, but did send samples that were not collected in the field to a laboratory.
According to the USFS, the control samples were submitted to test the accuracy of the lab. A number of biologists familiar with the survey had expressed concern that the lab was not set up to handle hundreds of hair samples without contamination, making errors and false positives possible.
The biologists did not try to hide the fact that they had submitted control samples. In each situation, the scientists noted in their station or field notes that so called "blind control samples" had been sent to the labs
Oh, gee, your article is dated January 2002.
I stated the incident I'm referring to was reported December 2002.
So explain how the con-men made up the excuse before they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar?
You're referring to something else.
but keep searching.
I bet you believe that Forestry people don't burn their love letters to cause major forest fires, either, right?
Then again, since the EPA WAS counting the magical lynx hairs as real lynxes, the argument that it was part of a blind control doesn't fly very well.
And, naturally, I have a bachelor's in science, have studied the history of science extensively, and know full well the frauds so-called scientists are willing to perpetuate to promote their causes, power, and purse.
Not only that, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that many people disagreeing with me have to whip out their Acme Strawman Replicator because that's the only way they can feel that they've won something.
Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 02-15-10 at 10:06 PM.
It seems the non-scientists lack the skills to preserve the data on which their claim is based. Could it be possible that the original is "lost" and irrecoverable? How shocking that they expect rumours of a "lost" report to be acceptable as evidence.
I love the smell of face-palm in the morning!
"You ain't no Muslim bruv!"
I don't suppose it could have anything to do with it taking the Washington Times 13 months to get wind of the story, or to print it. The obvious answer was that there was a time machine involved and a preemptive leftist cover up.
WDFW Fact Sheet: Submittal of unauthorized study samples during interagency lynx surveyThe third-party investigation concluded in June, 2001 that a total of seven biologists, including two from WDFW, submitted unauthorized control samples to test the validity of the DNA analysis. Furthermore, the investigation resulted in the determination that there was no intent on the part of the biologists to defraud or undermine the study. According to the investigation and supported by WDFW's own review, the intent was to insure the study's scientific validity.
I've read it.
That I don't print out and keep every page of evidence of the corruption of the EPA on file for your leisurely review isn't my problem. I cited source and date, and you people try to refute it with an article dated 11 months previous.
That's right. Just a couple, to show that the range of the endangered lynx has expanded.
Did these "researchers" write in the "location" block some place where lynx are already known to exist?
Strangely, they claimed territories vastly outside extant ranges.
How peculiar. It's almost as if the researchers were trying to forge data to expand the extent of protected territory. They could easily have wrote locations on these samples that were in-between true samples, if all they were doing was "just checking" the labs. The geeks in the labs aren't anywhere near as smart as those brilliant men working out with the trees, they'd never figure that out.
But no, the "researchers" had to claim totally new territories. Maybe those researchers weren't smart enough to record the sample serial numbers so they'd know which ones were the "tests", unless those sites were completely off the current map?
I mean, naturally when you're doing a blind check, and the guys in the lab don't actually know where the sample came from anyway, of course you write down they came from Maine, not Oregon, just to make sure you don't get them mixed up, and what the hell, if the government can "protect" all the land in between Maine and Oregon if a little boo-boo happens, then, you know, no harm done, right?
p.s. the EPA wasn't the agency involved either.. The only time epa appears in the article you are referring to is when it is in the word "department", as inRare lynx hairs found in forests exposed as hoax
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Rare lynx hairs found in forests exposed as hoax* Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES* Published 12 <-- there is your article despite me not finding it archived directly through The Washington Times.The previously unreported Forest Service investigation found that the science of the habitat study had been skewed by seven government officials: three Forest Service employees, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and two employees of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Yeah yeah, I know all the lefty government agencies are all interchangeable, same thing as the EPA right?
Last edited by marduc; 02-15-10 at 10:31 PM.