Once again my apologies. I am using a new PDA browser that does not display web
pages well. I actually found the correct article by Dr. Jackson who now claims
he did not ever withdraw his dispute. He also now claims his colleagues only
provisionally withdrew their challenge for other reasons [keeping the discovery
valid would spur conservation efforts in the area of the discovery] and now
more or less are re-asserting their doubts.
Each reader wlll have to draw their own conclusions..Some of Jackson's concerns
about audio spoofing seem as far-fetched and illogical as he claims the Cornell
conclusions are. His
video concerns appear valid but he gives minimal credit to what the observers
saw with their own eyes.
Of more concern is who is right. If Jackson is correct then Cornell jumped the
gun and anti-conservation forces have a field day. If he is wrong then the
appearance of academic rivalry might distract the task at hand-hard
confirmation of the bird's existence.
I hope this is resolved soon. And again -apologies for the mixup on the
articles. Correct link www.aou.org and scroll to Jackson's article.
-----Original Message-----
From: <russlay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subj: [va-bird] Ivory Billed
Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:54 am
Size: 355 bytes
To: va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry-here is the website that reported on the dispute of the siting withdrawn.
www.inventas.co.nz/50rarestbirds/ivory.htm.
Russ Lay
Nags Head NC
You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send email
to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To unsubscribe, send email to
va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send email
to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To unsubscribe, send email to
va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
