Re(6): Summary of the facts in New England IP: 50.204.144.106 Posted on February 10, 2015 at 03:36:24 PM by weather01089
I do have to address this "peer review" comment. If a good track, provable to location with pictures, a kill site with verifiable evidence (bite, methods, etc) is found, or even a picture that's verifiable as to location, why would a "peer review" be necessary? We certainly have the track ID expertise present, and the expertise to ID the other obvious signs present. For example kill method, spacing of bite marks, diameter location, and method of entry etc. "Peer Review" has thrown out things like the Craftsbury VT. female with kitten confirmation, (for silly reasons), etc. There is a clear agenda there to dismiss all that is found somehow since it doesn't match the current theories. yet, we have DNA suddenly pop up out of several places that there allegedly were never confirmations, and a silly story that lacks good evidence of a cat that wanders 2000 miles, almost in a straight line at times, in search of love. And ends up in Connecticut. Make one side go beyond scientific reason, yet put forth absurd theories, (some in jest by the way), that a cougar can detect a female 300 miles away. We will find and publish widely any good reasonable evidence, with or without "peer review". Look what they did to Matanuck, now a Class 1 confirmation.- Replies: