...JJackson noted a while ago that one of the ivory-bills in the museum's collection was missing the exact same inner secondary as the feather supposedly recovered by Heinzman/Agey...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Ellen Flees To The UK2 days ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
16 comments:
This just illustrates the obvious: if a feather is found, and DNA analysis proves it is from an Ivory-Bill, it would still be necessary to prove that it came from a living bird, and not from a tree hollow, or a museum specimen.
Alternate explanations must be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The only evidence that could not be faked is a freshly killed bird. Other than that, it's all a matter of credibility and interpretation.
I don't believe they could fake a high quality video or film of an active, living bird that would stand up to scrutiny. In Jurassic Park, I could believe I was seeing a dinosaur if I "suspended disbelief," otherwise it was clearly "faked."
Also, I think we all trust Cornell not to produce a bogus video or film even if we all don't necessarily trust their interpretation of the Luneau video.
I flatly refuse to accept the excuse that goes "there's nothing we can do to produce real proof, so what we have is good enough."
I also don't like the "what do you want, a dead bird?" remarks. Cornell didn't need to kill an Ivory-bill in the 30's to prove they were there, and certainly nobody should now.
I also don't like the "what do you want, a dead bird?" remarks. Cornell didn't need to kill an Ivory-bill in the 30's to prove they were there, and certainly nobody should now.
Um....
As I understand it, no one believed or investigated the Singer tract reports until a dead body was produced.
No this is not a recommendation.
Um....
As I understand it, no one believed or investigated the Singer tract reports until a dead body was produced.
That knucklehead only proved that a bird HAD existed there. They still needed to prove if there were any left. And they did, quite easily. Not only that, but the skeptics were easily convinced, because unlike this latest search, they produced mountains of solid evidence.
Ivory-bills were proven to exist in the 30's in the Singer Tract with irrefutable evidence including:
1. Good photographs,
2. High quality film,
3. Audio recordings,
4. Detailed reports on behavior, feeding and nesting,
5. Detailed, accurate drawings,
6. Birds seen well by numerous people,
7. Good sightings by independent observers, including the likes of Roger Tory Petersen.
Despite vastly better technology, a much greater expenditure of money, and many times more effort, the current search has succeeded in 0 of 7 of the above categories. That’s why there are skeptics, and for good reason.
Points about fakery of photos are really sad.
Unfortunately, there are some people who think they understand 'science', and are quite forcefull in their opinions, but don't understand things nearly as much as they think they do.
For instance, I have seen comments about gouge widths as a way of seperating these species, and somehow collecting beak cells from trees and looking at them under the microsope.
Both these ideas are complete non-starters.
Those who talk about fakery of photos (they claim a good photo may not be good enough), are using this as a way getting out of the fact that no one can get a clear photo/video of the bird.
I can just these people saying to a records committee "no I'm not sending you the pictures of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper, because you may say they are fakes. However, I will send you a frequency distribution of its footprints and beak probes that proves it was one".
So you know more about science than the career, professional scientists who are making some of those postings, then?
Ivory-bills were proven to exist in the 30's in the Singer Tract with irrefutable evidence including:
Yes, with probably a much larger population (20 birds or more, estimated) in a much smaller are (60 km2 instead of 250 km2) and an active nest present and located. All the photographs are at or near the nest.
There's already been one (fortunately poorly executed) high profile hoax since the Arkansas reports:
billismad.tripod.com/mysearchfortheivorybilledwoodpecker/index.html
The discussion of fakery is not an excuse, it's planning defense strategies against the inevitable salvos of accusation that would come from, oh, maybe, this forum. Because the fact is, most legitimate individual photos of birds in the wild are not the clear, flawless shots featured in magazines. Most leave something to be desired.
billismad.tripod.com/mysearchfortheivorybilledwoodpecker
Are you seriously telling me that this photo, clearly of a model, would confuse anyone who knew what they were doing?
No of course not. It does however indicate that hoaxers, whatever their motives may be, are likely to have their sights set on the IBWO. And they might not all be so unskilled. That is the big advantage of eye-witness testimony from a known, reputable observer versus a photograph from an unknown. Ideal, of course, would be the photograph from a known, reputable observer. But even then there are going to be people who will suspect their motives, especially if they are some of the more prominent names who might serve to gain personally. The Cornell team has been subjected to undermining of their honesty and credibility for a long time already.
Fortunately I think people involved with IBWO activities, regardless of their positions on the AR evidence, are thoroughly on guard for fakery.
That model is pretty bad, isn't it?
Are you seriously telling me that this photo, clearly of a model, would confuse anyone who knew what they were doing?
His previous photo, of much poorer quality, fooled plenty of people.
It fooled them because the photo was poor enough to be misinterpreted if a person was willing to believe. If someone’s photo or video or film “proof” consists of small, blurry images, look out.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I know there are cases of a photo of a bird being taken where the species is common, and claimed that it was taken somewhere where it is rare. Undertandably, this could confuse people.
But I'm unaware of a faked photo of any bird (i.e. a photo of a something that wasn't the species, or a model/specimen) that has confused record commitees to the extent where they have accepted the record. Does anyone know of this happening?
Hoaxers generally seem to be trying to attract publicity and mess around with high-profile situations. I'm sure there's some specific psychopathology involved that a psychiatrist could give a name to. I doubt getting a false record of a McGillivray's Warbler on the South Carolina bird list would be a very desirable goal. The IBWO is a much bigger target. Bigfoot, Nessie, UFO, and crop circle hoaxers are legion.
By the way, just for clarity, I don't think anyone has seriously doubted the authenticity of the Luneau video. Its value, yes; but not its authenticity.
Post a Comment