(David Leuneau[sic], UALR) "Originally we published five points that made it an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and not a Pileated Woodpecker, since going back we now have 9 points."Note that Gene DePriest is not merely a "resident"--he's also the guy that sells the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Cheeseburger. In my opinion, a future, more accurately named "Pixelated Pileated Cheeseburger" may be significantly less lucrative.
Jay Harrod with the Nature Conservancy of Arkansas says disputes like these are all part of the scientific process and that 19 sightings have now been reported.
(Jay Harrod, The Nature Conservancy) "So we feel strongly we've proven the case. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is there and we still feel strongly."
(Mayor Billy Clay, Brinkley) "Cornell University has broken it down frame by frame they've used measurements on the white its just somebody looking for a little publicity."
(Doug Hunt, Resident) "I figure we've had people here that have seen it because people have been on the bayou for 40 years, but I haven't seen it."
(Gene Depriest, Resident) "There's over a half a million acres. It’s like hunting a needle in a haystack, a lot of ground, it's hard to find."
Out of 550,000 acres, research teams have scoured roughly 16% of the habitat.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
KATV article
Here is an article posted yesterday on the KATV site (the bold font is mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Jay Harrod states: "So we feel strongly we've proven the case. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is there and we still feel strongly."
Feeling is emotional, and my not reflect reality. What does he really THINK?
As this "evidence" ages [like a fine wine] it appears to be gathering a more complex flavour.
But I cannot "feel" it. And "feelings" have no place in science.
If some are reminded of Monty Python's "dead parrot" (Pinin' for the Fjords topic), then David Luneau's comment here reminds me of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition:
Confess!!! The Ivory-bill exists! Admit it.
We have FIVE, five points why it exists (original paper). Do you hear me? They are (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) in our Technical Response. So, SIX, six reasons why you are wrong. And those number NINE, nine reasons on our video analysis website! CONFESS!!!
Bring me the ... bring me the BLURRY VIDEO!!!
You will confess. No one can resist the blurry video.
...Of course, many of the 9 points are subpoints of the original 5, plus the 2 other "suggestive" features now promoted as certain.
Jay Harrod with the Nature Conservancy of Arkansas says disputes like these are all part of the scientific process and that 19 sightings have now been reported.
Where does the 19 sighting come from? Who were they made by? Where is the evidence that supports these?
The number 19 is way off. If one is to put a number on the sightings that have been reported, it would have to be in the hundreds. It seems that everyone that has went to look for the Ivorybill has had a sighting. But, there is one common factor that all of these sightings share, Not a single one of these people who was suppose to see the bird could get anykind of photo of it at all, not even a bad one.
So when we weigh the overall deal here, we not only have the 19 sightings made by the "Offical Search Team" that could not get anykind of photo or video, but we also have hundreds of other sightings made by the "Un-Official Search Team" that have also failed to do the same.
All it would take is "ONE" photo, just "ONE"! But that "ONE" seems to be very difficult for some reason out of all these confirmed & un-confirmed sightings.
One has to wonder why?
This deal has become an issue where one group keeps screaming there is "FIRE"! The firefighter come running to the fire. But each time they arrive, they find no fire to fight, no smoke is seen to find the fire, and they cannot even find any heat to even make them think there might even be a fire. But as good firefighters do, they take the claim as valid each time this happens, but after several trips to the same location for the same fire with no smoke, heat, or flames, the firefighters become less concerned & approch it as what it is, a false report and someone is doing it for other reasons. This deal has gotten to that point. They keep screaming fire but nothing has ever been presented to make anyone think one is really there. So why do they keep screaming fire for when no-one can find it?
Either show everyone a fire with smoke, heat, and flames, or stop calling the fire department and reporting a fire!
"All it would take is "ONE" photo, just "ONE"! But that "ONE" seems to be very difficult for some reason out of all these confirmed & un-confirmed sightings"
I think the above statement sums it up. To continue with this search more evidence must be presented. That has failed to be done. The video has now become a questionable piece of evidence. To futher use it would take other evidence to back it up. As to date the only other evidence Cornell has produced supports the Pileated Woodpecker theory futher. No photo's of an Ivorybill have been obtained, but very clear photo's of abnormal Pileated's have been produced.
But the needed photo's to back up all these sighting that have been made is still lacking. All we need is one, just one!
You guys,above, are all correct but you are STILL using logic. We have transcended logic here. We are into pure politics.
If I were Gene or the Mayor, I'd be saying the same things. After all, they just want to sell hamburgers.
Luneau has everything to lose. His rep is going down the tubes and he's chosen the stubborn path. As with Fitz, it was his free choice. So be it.
But it's Harrod and the Arkansas Nature Conservancy who should be ashamed of themselves. They know better. I suspect that the emails between Harrod and the national office are running hot!
To continue with this search more evidence must be presented.
I assume you mean more evidence to continue this search with public money, i.e., tax dollars. And if Cornell wants to use private donations, then let the buyer beware.
"I assume you mean more evidence to continue this search with public money, i.e., tax dollars. And if Cornell wants to use private donations, then let the buyer beware."
Speaking of public money, i.e., tax dollars, one has to wonder where the USF&W Service stands on this issue? They are the ones that has paid the bills on this issue. They are the ones that will have to account to the taxpayers in the end. They sure have been quite here lately!
And as for Cornell, when the public grants & private donations go extinct, so will the Ivorybill. The same applys to the Nature Conservacy. It's all about riding the cash cow till it will ride no more.
Post a Comment