BINAC on The Leak

Here.

The timing of The Leak

Laura Erickson laid it out here.

More on DNA testing

A paragraph from this Birdforum posting:

The IB team is called The Big Woods Conservation Partnership and is made up of quite a few entities. Four of the biggies are The Nature Conservancy, Cornell, Arkansas Fish and Game, and Audubon Arkansas. All those just mentioned where represented at the festival. As all who have been reading this thread know, the search wasn’t too successful. It must have been really disappointing to all who participated. They seemed like very down to earth people and were easy to approach and talk to. There wasn’t a whiff of high-falootin’ snobbery. They came across as earnest, and there certainly didn’t seem to be doubt on their end regarding the IB existence. I spoke briefly with Cornell’s Ron Rohrbaugh after the talk. I asked if they had found any feathers or droppings that could be dna’d. He said they had sent some feathers in, but they weren’t IBs. He said his mind was running along those lines and he’d even thought up an idea for a gizmo that would help with collecting. He was a nice guy, patient and soft spoken; I think he has the right personality for his profession. I wish the whole bunch good luck.

Here is a February '06 post on the same subject.

"Information first, documentation second"

Check out this article by John Fitzpatrick. It's from the Summer 2005 issue of Cornell's unfortunately-named "Living Bird" publication.

Here's one paragraph (the bold font is mine):

Early on, we made two important decisions. First, we would work hard through the winter and spring of 2005 to gain as much information as we could about the bird or birds that had been sighted. Our rule was "information first, documentation second," which in part explains why we have so many sightings in the absence of pictures. Fleeting glimpses of a woodpecker flying across an opening brought the binoculars up first, thus in a few cases providing observers with a detailed glance at key field marks for a precious second or two before the bird disappeared. Second, we were determined to treat this as a scientific discovery, not a bird-watching event. Therefore, we needed to accumulate physical, tangible evidence for the existence of the species and to present our best evidence in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal before discussing the discovery in public. We chose Science magazine, the flagship technical weekly published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Our brief article was accepted for publication on April 25, 2005--exactly one year after David Luneau secured the historic video that became the centerpiece of our article. Coincidentally, but for unrelated reasons, our secret began to leak on that same day, so we hastily arranged the news conference in which we made the information public. Editors at AAAS worked feverishly with us for two days to prepare the final version of the paper and its supporting online materials in time for their publication date that week. We owe them special thanks.

"IBWO or Bust"

More photos from the 2005-2006 search season are now available here.

"The link changes everything"

Hey Curtis Croulet,

Judging by this BirdForum post, I think you may have a basic misunderstanding about how blogging works.

Please take a minute to read this. Afterwards, if you still think this post was somehow unfair to you, please let me know in the comment section.

Thanks,
Tom

American Bigfoot Society losing faith in CLO's claims?

Here.

Time warp?

Here.

Editorial on the reward

Here.

An excerpt:

It's easy to imagine how many pileated woodpeckers (a more common species) might be subjected to undue harassment while the search is on. Putting a bounty on the ivory-billed birds might also prompt a flood of grainy, out-of-focus photos like the ones reputed to prove the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.