No, I understand your point that these guys were recklessly acting on their own & not following a good protocol in any sense. I was referring to where NMGA pointed out that if their story was true, they should've been salting the data with bobcat hair instead of lynx hair, to smoke out false positives. Salting the data with lynx hair, as they did, would only smoke out false negatives - which contradicts their story.
No More Gore Anymore pointed out that if they were suspicious of false positives coming from the lab, they should've planted a bobcat sample to see if the lab would score that as a lynx. That makes perfect sense!
It should. I said the same thing in post #8 on this thread.
Jenny, what one does in a single-blind test is submit test samples to the lab from two populations, known and unknown. In this case they would have been captive samples and field samples. Whether the known samples were lynx or bobcat is immaterial to the point.