------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far as I can tell, the Rainsong/Hepperles have now done everything necessary to legally insure their claim to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting, and the photos that demonstrate it!!! (Hip hip hooray... yawn). There is no reason left for secrecy, confidentiality, or holding back on their part --- their legal standing (about which they were so concerned), is established...
I therefore challenge them, in fact triple dog DARE them, indeed IMMMPLORE them, to now place the two splendid photos in question on the internet (or direct the proper investigators to do so) for the world to see and judge and comment upon (hey, Joe, think how many more hits your wacky website will get if you upload the pics --- I absolutely, positively GARRR-AN-TEEE it!! ...just no fudgin' with 'em beforehand, OK).
Let the games begin...
(someone wake me up if he actually has the gumption to do it...)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 comments:
So you seem to be giving a nod to this idea of "establishing a claim" (you even use the word legal). Are you just playing along or is there something to that? Does this has something to do with this reward, and if so, who is offering this reward that he is apparently seeking. I know Cornell has a $50,000 reward posted, but he seemed to be referencing a $10,000 reward.
Both... I am playing along, but yes, technically if your goal is the reward there are legal reasons you might want to protect your claim (if you simply publish it online, 100 more people can dive in and make the same claim).
The $10000 reward was an older reward offered. The $50000 reward is the current one (and the claimants now know that), but it is absolutely contingent upon leading authorities to a living IBWO. Photos, video, DNA, feathers, verbal descriptions, will get you nothing unless it leads to a living confirmed bird -- this is what Rainsong doesn't appear to have understood when he misread the old, outdated reward.
According to Nature Blog Network rankings your blog is #5 in the bird blog rankings. Seems you owe a lot of your blog traffic to Rainsong / Heppereles for putting your blog back on mainstreet.
geee, I thought I owed it all to debonair good looks and luminous reporting ;-)
I don't know the answer to this but I'll give it a go to spark some discussion on this question.
Since this story broke we heard about clear photos being taken to prove they saw a Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Are the photos going to be released to the public after the authorities view them or are they going to be released after the authorities view them?
Also IF the public gets to view the photos and IF they look real and convincing, is there any computer software or expert people who can analyze these photos to see if they are fake (aka photoshop) or if they are the real deal? What do you look for in photos to see if they were manipulated or not??
PS: has to be your looks!
I'll make a bet Cyberthrush would gladly forego any and all honors, accolades, etc. that this blog provides in exchange for confirmed, peer-reviewed "proof" of the IBWO's continued existence (whatever that might be).
That's the difference between some of us and the "fun-with-theatrics-let's-make-a-profit" crowd.
And I'm happy to chime in from time to time with what I hope is either a bit of welcome humor or some bit that is at least a little interesting or challenging.
On that note, thanks for the "memories fix" on the Clifford Irving/Howard Hughes story. It all came pouring back when I read about "Helga R. Hughes" and the Swiss Bank...
I'll play a bit of my addictions background, though, and suggest that what was at play in that one was simply some obvious narcissism on Irving's part. The operating theme for those sorts is "the rules don't apply to me," and the stories about his philandering escapades (Irving's, not Hughes') are pretty diagnostic.
That operates for gamblers as well (it's the mathematical "rules" they're often in denial about); there's a grandiosity that accompanies the acting-out episodes that is a particularly powerful part of their personalities (and the psychodynamics on that one amount to it's simply being an over-developed "survival device" leftover from a dysfunctional and traumatic childhood). The brain even carries its own "drug supply" within the neurotransmitter structures...
And even the delusional element that supports the "alternative reality" can apparently take on a life of its own. Which is why Melvin Dummar is still insisting he rescued Hughes out in the desert way back when...
I'm optimisitic that it isn't those forces that are driving the search for the IBWO...
re: Mike's questions
my best understanding is that the photos(2) exist, have been looked at by the initial set of authorities, are not believed to be photoshopped, and the only major question is what do they show -- a living IBWO or something else (slightly similar to the old Fielding Lewis debate).
Only the Hepperles can release the photos to the public since they own them. There are other bits of info related to the photos that seem to me to make this an open/shut case, but also haven't been released.
I hope authorities don't think the case is so weak that they intend to let it fade away without any public pronouncement on it -- that would be a mistake; they need to at least state that they could find no basis for pursuing the claims, if that is the case. Of course all these folks have actual day-jobs and limited time to attend to this matter and get it resolved.
(All based on background info I've seen but can't 100% confirm -- if anyone associated with the investigation cares to email me with clarifications or some estimate of when a public statement might come, of course I'd greatly appreciate it...)
There is only one way to know for sure. Make the photos available for us all to see. Nothing more, nothing less. What is so hard about that.
bill:www.wildramblings.com
The other thing I read was that he insisted on needing to get the photos "developed," which obviously suggests a film camera. Of course there are ways to create a hoax with a film camera, but if he has negatives, needless to say Photoshop tamering is ruled out.
The pictures by themselves won't settle the question for EVERYbody (and I don't think Joe or Dan have the guts to release the pics anyway); but the photos along with a lot of contextual details/information that need to be released, will.
Post a Comment