Each sound recording we have could arguably have been made by something else, too, but since the possible Ivorybill recordings were clustered in the same areas as the sight reports, although the ARUs and search teams were located more randomly, I'd say there's a better than even chance that at least some of the sound recordings really were of an Ivorybill.The "clusters" of "tantalizing" sound recordings were NOT obtained anywhere near the Cache River "hot zone" where the fleeting glimpses occurred--the typical recording locations were more like 50 to 80 miles away (in the White River area).
About Those Plummeting Fertility Rates
3 hours ago
Posts
5 comments:
Wait. I'm confused. Why does anyone even quote Ms. Erickson?
She linked to www.fishcrow.com!!
Has the entire world gone mad?
It is important to remember that even Cornell describes their sound recordings as inconclusive. First, it is remarkable that Science ever touched that paper - generally papers in their journal actually have "conclusions"! Methinks Cornell had someone watching over that submission.
Second, Cornell's (and posts like that above)continued suggestions that the recordings are more than has been proven is just another way to muddy the water with "suggestive of"...."seems to indicate"...."may be considered". Why do the Cornell apologists insist on changing the published record and saying the recordings may be IBWO - it has never been proven, and that is important when you are dealing with an extinct bird. One is reminded of the Saddam Hussein - Al Quaida comments put forth for years after the connection was known to be untrue.
Cornell does not have the evidence for the sound recordings, the sight records, or the video. They are relying on arguments like their assertion in their rebuttal to Sibley et al. that the black-white-black object, while they won't go as far to actually CALL it and IBWO (cause they know everyone would laugh), MIGHT be and IBWO, so anyone who wants to critique the video needs to PROVE that the B-W-B object is NOT and IBWO! HOW in the name of the Lord God Bird did that get into Science!
This aint science or Science - this is all spin, and it is going to prove to be the worst thing that has happened to conservation in the last 50 years.
Progress for science! Skeptisism has made it to the 4th position of the Google search for "Ivory bill". It's an NPR website that made it.
I've watched it move up from infinity to page 9 to page 8 and to page 4 and now to page 1. All in a month and a half.
When will it make the top position knocking off Cornell's site?
I don't understand, Laura. Please explain.
I've been wondering about Prum in all this ... he was widely quoted as saying the "cornell aru recordings were definative" ... then later he said that they wasn't definative and that he wasn't going to be pushed around by the CLO with its marketing arm, NDA's and private jets on loan jets from the intern's father.
can someone get prum to have as much spine as the Rupicola he is holding and get out of the the mothball fumes long enough to share the story of how he was bullied into submission during his first attempt at speaking his mind?
Post a Comment