And it’s the kind of bird that, if I’d recognize one almost as soon as I got it in the binocs, this guy would too.

Now this is an example of something that we see all the time, but don’t put together the implications for crypto: somebody who knows what he’s looking at, has a reputation for knowing that, and whose word is taken for virtual proof.

The implication, of course, is that people tend to be pretty good witnesses. You might get variations in the reports; you might get guesstimates. Might not be a professional scientist. Fine. But when a lot of people with reputations as observers – including everyday normal drivers, say, who better be able to interpret what they see very very reliably – are seeing something and reporting it pretty consistently, you have, if not proof, then something that is worth searching on.

This story, all by itself, puts the lie to the notion that eyewitness testimony is bad evidence. That’s a subjective, case by case judgment – and applying it to all eyewitness testimony is BAD judgment.

Alrighty then, he’s got some knowledge of the bird – he studied this exact species, after all – so… I guess he saw it. Nice to hear that this species is making a comeback in the San Gabriel Valley.