@SharonHill – You raise some interesting points which I would like to address. First, all of your points are one with which I agree, in the general case. However, I view the general case as a compilation of specific instances. Each specific instance is best evaluated on its own merits. To examine a specific instance with the general case logic (and then reject the specific case) is to not consider adequately the details of the specific case.
In non-laboratory (that is, not in a designed and controlled environment) settings, data is the plural of anecdotes (non-scientific, first-person observations),
at least as a starting point. It is a starting point which we may ignore to our error-making peril. It is a starting point which we must examine as closely as we can, or we risk error-making peril. Think of this as type I and type II errors.
Here are the objections you raise, followed by my comments:
SH: There should be supporting evidence that they are in that location - more people should see them
EA: Marlon Lowe, his mother, and his friend, all claimed to have witnessed the bird. I don’t recall if more people saw that event, or saw the bird in the general area. For me, in this specific instance, the agreement of the three witnesses was enough for me to provisionally accept that something unusual had happened. A following event, which added support in my mind that something weird had happened, was that the witnesses persisted in sticking to their story (or even mentioned it in the first place), even when their neighbors ridiculed them harshly. I was raised in a small, narrow-minded community, and know how cruel this can be.
SH: they should leave traces,
EA: I am not sure what you mean by this. The single instance was a large bird which lifted a child up and flew with him for a short distance. What traces do you mean? As far as I remember, nobody took the story seriously enough to go looking in the countryside for the birds. So, the traces (droppings, feathers, small dead animals with neck wounds) may have existed, but were not searched for. Alternately, the birds may have left traces too far away to be discovered. Birds even as large as a SA condor could live for years (but what would they eat?) in the Midwest forests without human discovery because of the sparce population and the very dense ground cover. Alternately, if the birds had escaped, they may have gone back to their original captivity when they got hungry enough, leaving nothing to discover.
I sometimes see, in the wilderness, animals which are out of their normal environment or exhibiting unusual behavior and which leave no trace such as footprints or scat. I have told others of these sightings, to be told that I was mistaken. However, I was not mistaken (from 10 feet away, smelled them, viewed clearly for more than a few seconds). These sceptics were applying the general case to my specific instance.
SH: it should happen more than once,
EA: I disagree. If this was an established population, exhibiting typical behavior, then, yes, it should happen more than once. However, in this specific instance, a bird attempted to pick up and fly away with a child. It failed. If this was typical behavior in a typical environment, then it “should” try again with a different child. However, it wasn’t typical behavior nor a typical environment. I once was dive-bombed by a golden eagle when I was walking out in a back pasture to examine a dead newborn calf with severe neck wounds. It scared the crap out of me. It was not typical behavior (“should happen more than once”), but it happened.
SH: there should be an explanation for why they may be there, etc.
EA: Sharon, who should be responsible for explaining, in this specific instance, why the birds were there? I think that, with unusual occurrences, the established authorities (persons who, by reason of their occupation or expertise, are generally considered to be a respected source of comment) tend to decide (accept or reject) based on degree of congruity with previous instances – the general case, again. In this specific instance, there were no previous cases to compare to, so the accepted authorities (if I recall correctly, the local police) politely rejected.
SH: We don't usually have any of that.
EA: I agree – we don’t. That no other evidence was forthcoming is a cause for more caution, not less. For me, the evidence of the 3 witnesses was sufficient for me to
provisionally accept that some big bird picked up a child. I assume it happened, with the caveat in my mind that it was a wild-ass story. For you, the testimony of the three purported witnesses was insufficient to provisionally accept, so you rejected the story. I respect that. However, I do not agree with your applying general case logic to this specific instance.
SH: We do know that people ubiquitously make mistaken observations and unknowingly exaggerate or change the events when they describe them.
EA: Yes, I agree with this. However, I disagree that this reasoning be applied to all specific instances as an accept/reject
criterion. If this were a good way to figure things out, we would reject all general non-laboratory observations because “
people ubiquitously make mistaken observations and unknowingly exaggerate or change the events when they describe them.”
That witnesses make mistakes is something to bear in mind to all specific cases, which is why I have only provisionally accepted that a SA condor tried to fly away with a child. However, in my heart I think it really happened. But, if the witnesses recanted their story, I would, with a heavy heart, sadly accept that SA condors were not on the loose in the US midwest
SH: So, that is even more likely than an out-of-place animal.
EA: I disagree with your summary conclusion, based on the specific points above.