Show me photos.

Parke.

On 3/16/2007, "Charles Vaughn" <> wrote:

>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
>>>