Sidewinder said:
A few thoughts in anticipation of new evidence being presented.
Having a stellar publication record and having a stellar field identification record are 2 different things. I'm not saying that the publication record doesn't hold any weight, but I would look at what the publications are. Just because you are a brilliant research ornithologist does not by necessity imply that that brilliance carries over into field identification. I'd be more impressed if a field guide author or a tour leader with a stellar reputation was making claims in matters of field identification. Field experience matters and talent bubbles up to the top.
Reputations in this matter could pull one in two directions, maintaining one's name or making one's name.
There is a difference between a skeptic and a cynic in this matter. True believers and true disbelievers do not need to look at evidence since their minds are made up. In my opinion everyone should be looking at the evidence as objectively and dispassionately as possible.
People have to be confident enough to present their case knowing that people are going to ask the tough questions.
I hope people stay away from the villification and other personal attacks of those presenting evidence, those asking tough questions & those offering analysis.
Here's a list of skeptical IBWO evidence questions I had posted earlier that I've updated based on previous comments. I think that the types of questions that are generally being discussed about a set of evidence can be used to rate the quality of the evidence. In increasing order of quality:
1. Is this a bird?
2. Is this a woodpecker?
3. Is this a Red-headed Woodpecker (RHWO), PIWO or IBWO?
4. Is this a PIWO or an IBWO?
5. Is this an aberrant PIWO or an IBWO?
6. Is this a simple hoax?
7. Is this an elaborate hoax?
I really hope that this evidence isn't going to require a Ph.D. to analyze.
I was willing to believe a year and a half ago. I've learned to be more skeptical since then. I could still be convinced, but I need to see convincing evidence that is not considered subject to interpretation.
Time will tell.