Ibwo
I know Collin's evidence contemporaneously as it was gathered. Also friend knows him well. He has made mistakes and continues to on various levels but probably not on his final conclusions of recent presence/absence of IB.
He did amass evidence of one and two IBWOs on a few separate occasions. You need to look at this work carefully for many, many hours; and understand the IB's literature, community structure, ecology, physiology, stochastic events, rapid selection pressure, wariness, likely 21st cent. behavior, bottlenecks, calls, knocks, flight mechanics, video artifacts, his videos frame by frame, etc. RBCs rules for first state records, for example, is not science. You need to know all your birds; by know I mean all sounds and ecology down to preferred food items of all Picidae (just as one granular example that will help you in a fair assessment of presence/absence of the IB pre 2015).
Collins himself has always been and likely will remain weak in some of these exact areas. Regardless he did discover some new things about the IB.
Because of his weaknesses his presentations may not have many data sets and he must live and struggle (as we are forced to) with his main data set (poorly resolved, but suggestive videos that get better as each individual learns more).
With his best "sightings" he would likely prove in a long, US Civil case that he saw one, two, more? IBs.
He would not use his cute little drawings that a paid painter did; these depict multiple field marks he did not see; they are misleading. I have no sane explanation why he did this and paying for it all is bizarre but enlightening.
He would need to have a successful jury selection process seating people with a science background. His team would then present many mov., jpgs, drawings, jpg enlargements, diagrams, papers, etc. The Rhein Imperial Woodpecker film would be pivotal along with CU, AU and Collin's ACCEPTED PUBLISHED papers and supporting material/videos. They would have all possible competing species presented and eliminated as needed.
No matter what Collins would not act pro se in the trial, that did not go well for T. Bundy as far as extinction. Mike would be limited to passing notes to his team of Esqs. His ass might not kiss the stand unless forced by others. If he gets up there it might or might not go well but should be survivable even though his lack of strategic control and personality traits would make it cable-TV worthy.
Expert witnesses would easily add some scientific consensus, and elucidation, although it could be countered, but poorly by skeptics. I say poorly because all you need to do is look upthread here and in many websites, papers, posts, etc. and you will see the poor work their "experts" and other mortals have been able to do. Their one or two liners will not sway a jury. Sibley Note, Collinson's paper, Jackson's odd tantrums, Prum's ping ponging, bizarre statistical papers, etc. were bullocks.
Skeptics may not be prepared since they have always had an obtuse attitude that the null hypothesis is extinction; it is not. This has made them exceedingly careless, condescending, lazy, entrenched, conflicted, etc. Many formal entities have recently said, the IB is not extinct or certainly extinct (see USFWS, AR RBC, IUCN, LA RBC, etc).
Also some on a jury can be swayed by the moral opinion accepted by many we have hypothetically chosen for the jury (lol). You err on the side of conservation of a critically endangered animal and extremely valuable natural resource that might very well be alive.
Many will rationalize and say it is "someone else's job". It is not simply as the above person sophomorically asserts "that the burden of proof is on Collins". This person evidently hasn't heard of a conservation ethic. With that attitude a Civil jury may teach this poster that concern for animals is something more than keeping an often, useless life list.
However in a Criminal case Collins may get a hung jury on his LA and Fl evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt that he did see or did not see an IB would likely each get some votes. He might get a plurality of votes.
However on a larger, extinction stage, with the question being was there any IBs in the S US post 2000, the IB would again win, this time even more easily, in a Civil case. A Criminal case could likely be won especially when we add to the evidence lie detectors test passed by many great field birders, Ornithologists, kayakers, turkey hunters, good people, etc.
Lie detectors results could be presented of skeptics answering "have you ever seen and IB?" Answer--- NO then "Where did you look and what were your methods?" " humma humma humma"
I doubt if these trials would ever happen even in an arbitration situation if the looser had to pay for ALL winners costs. Collins would likely agree but then it would be as hard to find an IB as it is to find a skeptic with a suit, tie and $50,000 in escrow with the clerks.
good night
ps do not assume a response to any silliness or lazy posts, they may just be left as evidence of the above
, bins can be borrowed along with a beginners Field Guide to S US Birds...and bring your smart phone. We are waiting!!! .:t:
