Yes, it is hard for me to understand--I feel Hill is holding two contradictory opinions at the same time. If I were sure I saw a bird that was believed to be extinct, or even very rare, I would only be sure myself if I had convincing evidence--approaching "scientific proof"--something that would satisfy a rarities committee, for instance. (I think I would
really feel that way, especially, if I were a professional ornithologist.) Otherwise, I would say to myself, "well, I may have seen one, but I'm not absolutely sure, so I'll keep it to myself until I get better proof." I know my own fallibility as a birder, so I try to be cautious. For instance, in 1993, I had a
very brief overflight of a large waterfowl in Costa Rica. It was large and dark, with white in the wing. I think it was likely a Muscovy Duck, but I had not seen a Black-bellied Whistling Duck at that time, and did not get a good-enough look to differentiate the two, given my inexperience. The Muscovy does not appear on my life list, but I did note the possibility in my field notes. Had it been a real notable rarity, I would not have been comfortable submitting it to a committee--I would have let it pass. On the same trip I saw a male Umbrellabird, a bit out of location for the season. I observed it for about 5 minutes with binoculars and took careful notes--the Umbrellabird appears on my life list.
To me, it is intellectually dishonest to say "I
know I saw an Ivory-bill, but I have no proof. I think a good, properly documented sight record by a competent observer
is proof. (And I have not seen such a properly-documented record from Cornell--at least in the 2005 Science paper, or from Hill's on-line publication. I know the Arkansas committee accepted the Cornell sightings, apparently based on the Science paper, but if you read the individual sightings, I feel they are all poor.)
I'll give an example of what I feel is an honest account of possible sightings--Jerome Jackson describes some possible encounters
here, including one very suspicious set of
kent calls in Mississippi. Later he heard a Blue Jay give a similar call in the area. But Jackson admits the evidence is inconclusive--he does not
know he heard an Ivory-bill:
I thought that having a Blue Jay imitate the Ivory-bill's call might in itself indicate the presence of Ivory-bills. But weeks later I stood in a friend's backyard in New Jersey as a Blue Jay gave the same call -- outside the range of any Ivory-bill and in the absence of taped calls.
Jackson's approach seems more intellectually consistent. Again, Hill's opinions, are, I feel, quite self-contradictory. Self-contradiction abounds around the Ivory-bill saga, post 2004.