LOL! Not even close!
You may have honorable intentions but lying isn't the way to accomplish anything.
Exactly! That's why I started up this thread. Zip, lying is not the way to accomplish anything. Yet we have 2 mutually contradictory sets of facts regarding what exactly happened. Not 2 different characterizations. Not 2 different "spins" on the same story. Two different sets of claims of hard fact. Don't you think it would be important for us to try to determine which of the 2 mutually contradictory stories is the true one & which is the false one? HINT: Just because one story confirms our beliefs about the subject in general does not automatically make it the true one.
Actually, on the other thread I mention one way out of the contradiction: Apparently the WA State biologists were the ones who put lynx hair into the sample vials & labeled them with non-existent numbers so they wouldn't get mixed in with the real data. This leaves the federal biologists, and maybe they were the ones who put lynx hair on the traps in the wild.
If this is the case, then that explains the discrepancy, and seals the case (in my mind at least) against the specific biologists who tried to defraud the system (the feds), and exhonerates the specific biologists who merely did something stupid (the WA State guys).
Now if attempting to solve mutually competing sets of factual claims to determine the real truth makes one a tree hugger, then give me a hammer & sickle & call me "Lillian Hellman".
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.