Well, I think that those questions have now been answered.
In fact, a source (I cannot reveal the source, as he/she is currently the subject of a federal investigation for communicating with me) has told me that Cornell has located a family of IBWOs that have been extensively studied. When I questioned my source, he/she insisted that good photographs had been taken since the birds were virtually tame and allowed the search team to approach them very closely.
I, of course, demanded proof, and my source managed to download one of the photos off of Cornell's server and e-mail it to me. This is why he/she is wanted by the FBI. The picture below is the property of Cornell, and I do not have authority to post it, but I am doing so anyway. I debated long and hard about whether I should post it or not, it was not an easy decision for me.
Careful observers will note that several identifiable members of the official Cornell search team are visible in this photo, thereby proving that it was taken recently in the Arkansas search area. Since they are not wearing heavy jackets, the photo must have been taken during the summer or early fall. Maybe now Cornell will tell us the whole story.
Here is the photo, which will be posted on this site until Cornell or a judge orders me to take it down:
6 comments:
You might just disappear into federal custody.
Did you see this quote on Tom Nelson the skeptic's site ( http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/ ), apparently from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
“We need to locate the bird, locate a roost,” said Connie Bruce, a spokesman for the Cornell Lab said. “We’re scientists, so there has to be evidence.”
If a photograph or video evidence of the bird is obtained, such information would be made public, Bruce said. “If there was any evidence we had to show the public and press, we’d be shouting it right now.”
Ah, if the feds really wanted to disappear me, they would have done it a long time ago...
I thought that was a very interesting article quoted on Tom's site, perhaps that may put at least some of the runors to rest for a while.
However, as Tom pointed out, parts of that article are misleading, at best.
For example, the article implies that searchers this year did not have to sign confidentiality agreements, and that is simply false, as has been noted here and on numerous other sites.
So the search isn't really out in the open this year, either. You can debate all day whether that's right or wrong, but that is the current state of affairs.
What is unclear to me is why Cornell lets all of these half-truths get repeated and published. I mean, why can't Ken Rosenberg just admit that the searchers all signed confidentiality agreements this year as well? In addition to being true, it's the same thing that was done last year, and I'm not sure why Cornell would risk their credibility on an issue that doesn't really mean anything...they're just giving the skeptics (and the grouches like myself) more ammunition.
You do really that photo's a fake, right? A bunch of ivory bill dolls hung up on strings to make a nice group picture. Nobody is meant to believe those are real ivory-bills. No one will knock down your door for publishing it.
Elliotte Rusty Harold
I have been assured by my source that the photo is indeed genuine, and that the photo came straight from Cornell.
If that photo is in fact a hoax (which is highly doubtful -- where are the strings in the photo? Where would Cornell get sutffed Ivory-billeds from?), then virtually everyone on the Cornell team would have to be in on it. And the only possible explanation for that would be that Cornell and the feds are attempting to smear this site with a massive disinformation campaign.
I shudder to think of what they might try next. I heard that they actually put a contract out on Tom Nelson. Anyone could be next.
Speaking of Tom Nelson, a lot of his critiques are as weak as the "proof" he criticizes. Especially his use of very fuzzy pictures to show that a very fuzzy picture is not an Ivory Bill, his "analysis" of the Kent calls, and his interpretation of the picture that supposedly shows an Ivory Bill partially behind a tree. Anyone can argue that a picture "looks like" something else to them. That is not evidence that what is depicted is not what Cornell claims. He also forgets that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was thought to be extinct at least twice prior to discovery of the birds in the Singer tract, and at least once prior to rediscovery in Cuba. It is entirely plausable that a few birds could go undetected for 60 years, and even elude a dedicated search in Arkansas, especially if the Cache river is not Elvis' home territory. The Bermuda Petrel was thought to be extinct for 300 years prior to its rediscovery. Let's give Cornell some time before declaring them all to be idiots.
You raise some good points, but even so, what Tom has done with his site is pretty amazing...he has really changed the way people are lookng at the whole IBWO rediscovery. Good or bad, right or wrong, there are a lot of people who are reading what he says, and the lack of info (good or bad) coming from Cornell is just fueling the skeptical fire.
Post a Comment