Open Thread
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
Bicycles Can End Bad Weather10 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
3 comments:
"I guess eighteen more could have died in Florida."
Great ending!
However when Jeffrey Wells, Cornell’s logistical manager for the search, decided to pair observers for better quality control, the sightings stopped; all but the one by avowed ivory-billed searcher David Luneau and his brother-in-law that produced the infamous four seconds of blurry video.
Am I wrong in remember that the Luneau video was not, in fact, accompanied by a sighting in real-time?
Anon wrote: "Am I wrong in remembering that the Luneau video was not, in fact, accompanied by a sighting in real-time?"
Well, yes and no. If you watch the entire video and pay attention to the human body language, voices, etc., then it is fairly obvious that the guys in the canoe did NOT see the bird flush. It seems that maybe DL finally saw a shape disappearing through the forest, and says to the brother in law "did you see that" (or words to that effect). Subsequently, however, the brother in law goes on record as not only having seen the bird, but that he could tell that it was a male with red on the head! This is one of the most glaring examples of CLO's shady IBWO evidence. If the video was so expertly analyzed, then why would CLO include the brother in law's testimony when he clearly never saw the bird? I noticed this the first time that I saw the video in it's entirety, so why couldn't CLO figure it out after watching the video ad nauseum? Or, could it be that they..... no, no, Oh My Gawd!
Post a Comment