Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
“falsely labeling”10 hours ago
-
Last day to vote…10 hours 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 To9 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
8 comments:
That sound you hear is Fitz twisting in the wind.
I've never seen an ivory bill either but I can tell the differnce between the fitz et al sketch in 33.3 and what is in the video which is the underwing of a bird pushing off a tree ... in fact ANYONE should be able to look at the posting on this site with the slow motion section of this video and SEE for themselves. Fitz et al are just wrong about the position of the bird ... it isn't like they "might be" wrong. It is plain as can be that this is the underwing.
It is plain as can be that this is the underwing.
Then I guess I need glasses or a white cane.
Glasses, I would say. I've got a white cane and I can see the underwing.
"It is plain as can be that this is the underwing."
It is as plain as can be to everyone who is not an "Official" expert. But what we need to remember is "ALL" the "Official" experts it seems are connected to the search and everyone else has been placed in the group considered outside the "Official" expert group.
So the question here is this, How many "Non-Official" experts does it take to count the same as one "Official" expert? It seems it has just about come down to the point of the small "Official" search group vs the rest of the world. The video, the only solid piece of evidence which has supported this whole search, has been given peer review after peer review, and has seemed to fail all test to everyone except the small, close nit group which makes up the search team.
How many more "Un-Official" peer reviews will it take by all these so-called Non-Experts to offset the "Official" views of the so-called "Experts" who are running the show?
OK, before you buy a cane.
Please watch the clip here about 12 times. If you still feel like you can't see that this is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same as the fig s1 in the original fitz paper, and IS like sketch in the Sibley paper ... forget for a minute about what kind of bird in the clip but focus on WHAT PART OF THE BIRD is in the clip.
Please watch the clip here about 12 times. If you still feel like you can't see that this is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same as the fig s1 in the original fitz paper, and IS like sketch in the Sibley paper ... forget for a minute about what kind of bird in the clip but focus on WHAT PART OF THE BIRD is in the clip.
Sorry, still not working for me.
Fig 1B from the Cornell response is too close to the original video for me to agree with you without resevations.
We can't even decide if the bird is perched or flying nevermind trying to ID it.
I wish I never saw that crummy video.
I see a perched bird. Too bad it isn't an IBWO.
Sorry Mr. Sibley.
Post a Comment