The issue isn't one of hearsay. IT'S THE VIDEO. An eye witness at a 
police beating is usually overruled by a video taken of the same 
event. We're talking about the analysis of the video, not the eye 
witness account. Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable - 
especially for blink events such as the woodpecker sighting. "Nullius 
in Verba" for such an important event.

Charlie

>To me, the words of someone that was THERE, as opposed to being in a 
>room anywhere in the country (Massachussetts?), should count 
>MORE.  It's sad that more people don't see it that way.
>
>Look at it this way, whose testimony would a jury buy, a witness of 
>a murder, or someone reporting that they heard about the murder?
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>>From: Charles Vaughn <>
>>To: RICHARD JILL WOOD <>
>>Subject: Re: [MDOSPREY] OT: Latest in Ivory Billed debate
>>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0400
>>
>>I don't think you have to sit in a room in Arkansas to review the 
>>video that is given as evidence for the Ivory-billed. Sitting in a 
>>room anywhere else in the country should be adequate to form an 
>>opinion - and possibly a correct one at that. But, opinions are 
>>just that, opinions, not definitive proofs. As the motto of the 
>>Royal Society of London says "Nullius in Verba" (Latin: "On the 
>>words of no one").
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>At 10:50 AM 3/16/2007, you wrote:
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>To me, it's funny that the people that are skeptics are the ones 
>>>that haven't been in Arkansas or Florida (such as David Sibley), 
>>>and that their word is being taken as "definitive" over those that 
>>>say they have seen Ivory-billeds.
>>>
>>>That's a shame that we have placed that much faith in a few 
>>>self-annointed "experts".
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>>Charles Vaughn
>>1306 Frederick Avenue
>>Salisbury, MD 21801
>>
>>410-742-7221
>>