A lot of this is repetition, but here goes.
As I've stated elsewhere, I think the question of how a large enough breeding population or populations could have survived undetected for so long is the strongest argument for extinction, but I don't think it's by any means an overwhelming one. There's some thought-provoking theorizing going on about this over at ibwo.net.
You're playing a bit fast and loose with the facts in some of your other statements, however. I've never been a big fan of the super-stealthy hypothesis, and the truth is that some post-1940s sightings, including a recent report from Arkansas, have come from vehicles. That particular sighting was ridiculed here for that very reason. Your flat statement that the IBWO was/is not adaptable is unproven, and even though Tanner may have said so, it is unsupported by what we do know about the species. Habitat in South Florida is quite different from habitat in Arkansas or, for that matter, in Ohio or Kentucky, where archaelogical and historical evidence, respectively, indicates IBWOs were, at the very least, visitors. This expansive range, in terms of both habitat and climate, is strong evidence that the IBWO was/is more adaptable than Tanner and others have suggested.
As for the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" canard, invoked again by another poster, it was fatuous when Carl Sagan said it about ETs, and it's even more fatuous when it's used by certain skeptics as a cudgel. Here's why. On the evidence side of the statement: evidence, by its very nature, is ordinary -- it may be circumstantial; it may be physical; it may be eyewitness, etc., but it's all the product of human efforts at collecting it, and it's all utterly commonplace, whatever the discipline. The term "extraordinary evidence" is exceedingly vague and subject to endless recalibration. I haven't gone back and reviewed the original statement, and it may be that Sagan had something specific in mind; perhaps he meant an "extraodinary quantity of evidence," or perhaps he meant an actual alien spacecraft. Whatever he meant, this was essentially a glib soundbyte, not the expression of a clear, scientific standard of proof.
Regarding the "extraordinary claims" side of the equation, I agree that claims the Earth is being visited by alien spacecraft (as opposed to the claim that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe) and that giant, hominid bipeds are roaming North America are extraordinary, when there's nothing in the fossil record to support the latter claim and no physical evidence to support the former one. Conversely, the survival and rediscovery of species presumed extinct (sometimes for millions of years) is in fact rather commonplace, sometimes even in highly populated areas. Are most of these species as big and dramatic looking as the IBWO, no, but I venture to say that most of those species have not been sighted nearly as frequently as has the IBWO over the last sixty years. The ease with which skeptics reject those sightings as the product of confusion with the PIWO actually cuts both ways; it provides a pretty good basis for explaining how the IBWO might have survived "under the radar."
As I've stated elsewhere, I think the question of how a large enough breeding population or populations could have survived undetected for so long is the strongest argument for extinction, but I don't think it's by any means an overwhelming one. There's some thought-provoking theorizing going on about this over at ibwo.net.
You're playing a bit fast and loose with the facts in some of your other statements, however. I've never been a big fan of the super-stealthy hypothesis, and the truth is that some post-1940s sightings, including a recent report from Arkansas, have come from vehicles. That particular sighting was ridiculed here for that very reason. Your flat statement that the IBWO was/is not adaptable is unproven, and even though Tanner may have said so, it is unsupported by what we do know about the species. Habitat in South Florida is quite different from habitat in Arkansas or, for that matter, in Ohio or Kentucky, where archaelogical and historical evidence, respectively, indicates IBWOs were, at the very least, visitors. This expansive range, in terms of both habitat and climate, is strong evidence that the IBWO was/is more adaptable than Tanner and others have suggested.
As for the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" canard, invoked again by another poster, it was fatuous when Carl Sagan said it about ETs, and it's even more fatuous when it's used by certain skeptics as a cudgel. Here's why. On the evidence side of the statement: evidence, by its very nature, is ordinary -- it may be circumstantial; it may be physical; it may be eyewitness, etc., but it's all the product of human efforts at collecting it, and it's all utterly commonplace, whatever the discipline. The term "extraordinary evidence" is exceedingly vague and subject to endless recalibration. I haven't gone back and reviewed the original statement, and it may be that Sagan had something specific in mind; perhaps he meant an "extraodinary quantity of evidence," or perhaps he meant an actual alien spacecraft. Whatever he meant, this was essentially a glib soundbyte, not the expression of a clear, scientific standard of proof.
Regarding the "extraordinary claims" side of the equation, I agree that claims the Earth is being visited by alien spacecraft (as opposed to the claim that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe) and that giant, hominid bipeds are roaming North America are extraordinary, when there's nothing in the fossil record to support the latter claim and no physical evidence to support the former one. Conversely, the survival and rediscovery of species presumed extinct (sometimes for millions of years) is in fact rather commonplace, sometimes even in highly populated areas. Are most of these species as big and dramatic looking as the IBWO, no, but I venture to say that most of those species have not been sighted nearly as frequently as has the IBWO over the last sixty years. The ease with which skeptics reject those sightings as the product of confusion with the PIWO actually cuts both ways; it provides a pretty good basis for explaining how the IBWO might have survived "under the radar."
John Mariani said:
Last edited:
SO, you don't think credibility is a matter of opinion?
