"....The truth is out there."
-- Dr. Jerome Jackson, 2002 (... & Agent Fox Mulder)
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
"All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Monday, April 17, 2006
While we await Cornell's May analysis/summary of their current search evidence we can also wait for a presentation by Ivory-bill sighter Bobby Harrison on May 5 at a Birding Festival in Decatur, Alabama. Bobby, of course, has been travelling around giving his version of events to enthusiastic crowds for quite awhile now, but this particular talk is promoted with a bit more promise than the usual presentation:
"Harrison said presently he can't comment about whether he's had more bird sightings, but he said he will show new video that proves the bird's existence.
'One of the videos has not yet been made public and will be shown for the first time during the catfish and barbecue dinner,' he said."
Addendum: here are some additional talks Bobby has scheduled in May:
- May 6: Tennessee Ornithological Society meeting: Nashville, TN
- May 13: Friends of Point Pelee Fund Raiser: Point Pelee, CN
- May 20: Kirtland's Warbler Festival: Roscommon, MI
- May 24-25: Francis M. Weston Audubon Society: Pensacola, FL
It will not clearly show an IBWO, that is for sure.
The poster cannot possibly know what the video will or will not show.
That view is simply close-minded.
At this point, we can't even be sure whether what Harrison is showing will be new at all; the reporter could have garbled the quote. As a person who has been convinced by the evidence that's been presented thus far of which the video footage is but one piece, I wouldn't presume to make any assumptions about the contents of Harrison's video. I find it telling and more than a little ironic that self-proclaimed "skeptics" are so prone to prejudging without examining the evidence.
There is the 1/4 second Harrison "Ivory-bill" video that most of us have never seen, although it has been presented publicly before.
Harrison is a bit of a "loose cannon" on the Cornell team, in my opinion. Cornell doesn't seem to back his claims of his two (there is a second flyby briefer than the first) IBWOs shown in that clip.
If this is a video that clearly shows an IBWO, this isn't the way Cornell would be presenting it.
None of these exciting rumors has yet turned out to be definitive to the world of science.
If it clearly shows an IBWO, that will be great, and I will believe. But based on experience and common sense, it almost surely won't.
While I presume this is meant to be an apolitical blog, the parallels with “evidence" for Iraq being a threat three years ago and current "evidence" for Iran being a threat demonstrate why people should be wary of those who in the past have made major claims on evidence that is not really there.
Only after reviewing the information will I form an opinion.
The people on the ground are seeing ivory-bills. The skeptics are just arriving conclusions from miles away, without any first-hand knowledge.
And as might be expected, when called on the disingenuous nature of certain arguments, they resort to smear tactics, attacking Bobby Harrison as a "loose cannon" and a profiteer. That kind of thing is - more than patriotism - the true last refuge of scoundrels.
And I bet most of the Skeptics who hate Harrison also hate Bush and all the good things he stands for. And I bet they are Liberals too!
I must have been out of town that weekend. Was it in the papers?
It's a red-herring and a smear. There is simply no comparison, and to suggest that Cornell or anyone else is acting in bad-faith or has in any way prejudged the case is utterly unsupported by any evidence.
You may think the case is flimsy, but the CLO did not "fix the facts around the intelligence"; it got reports from people in country; it followed up on them; it reached conclusions based on evidence, and it published the results. There's simply no similarity between Cornell's actions and the Bush administration's, and it's truly vile to suggest that there is.
I mean, come on, one is a person and one is a country. So take that Skeptics!
WMD vs. IBWO. Blurry satellite images vs. video. Inability to find WMD's or IBWO's. Stubborn Bush vs. stubborn Fitz. It is beginning to sound very similar.
Not all skeptics are intellectually dishonest, but it's unfortunate that so many of them seem to be.
Bush and WMD are very similar to Fitz and IBWO?
Can't we at least agree on the obvious?
Shouldn't we then be putting up "UFO Welcome" signs and making habitat for them?
When you can't argue the merits, attack, distort, mischaracterize, resort to sarcasm and ridicule. Right out of the talk radio playbool. Pathetic.
There is no possibility of intelligent discourse on this subject via the internet.
There is no intelligent discourse possible when discussing possible sightings of IBWO?
So we are agreed that IBWO's must be extinct? Because no intelligent discourse on the internet could possibly be intelligent when discussing he possible existence of IBWO.
Ok, at long last, we all agree on something.
Well said. In fact, very well said.
and may have been a metaphor or even a simile, but it was behind a tree for most of the time. Just don't start a major conservation effort (or war) over it.
Links to this post: