Field Supervisor Elliott Swarthout is paraphrased this way (the bold font is mine):
So far, Bayou DeView within Dagmar Wildlife Management Area is the only spot with good sightings, and the team believes that the birds are nomadic and that the source population lives in White River National Wildlife Refuge, based on James Tanner's work.
...
In the coming months, the search will incorporate four ultralite plan[e]s in a 50-meter staged formation. The pilots will wear helmet cameras, and one ultralite with a fixed camera will film the landscape below. "We have some pretty high hopes for these guys," Swarthout said.
Posts
27 comments:
Ultralights flying in formation with helmet-cams? If true, this thing has shifted into the realm of true farce.
And the skeptics are the wind beneath the wings of the ultralights. If everyone accepted Cornell's evidence would they be
trying this hard? Don't know.
Nor do I totally buy their evidence
though the kent sounds to me are much closer to IBWO than Blue Jay.
Especially after listening to the 1935 sounds being degraded. They
now sound like the 2005 kent calls to me. People's abilities to hear
different sound patterns vary too.
It does seem a bit desperate, but
the same desperateness got us to the moon. Good thing the moon was a fixed target. I'm afraid we'll be seeing another blurry video but hey, you are much less likely to see underwing
from up there. :-).
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
update here:
http://www.operationmigration.org/Field_Journal.html
It is likely that any positive photographic evidence will have to be built on video or photos poor enough to be misinterpreted, so that plan may work in that sense. It is likely to result in some blurry video of a bird, of poor enough quality so people can tick off IBWO field marks if they try hard enough.
Especially after listening to the 1935 sounds being degraded. They now sound like the 2005 kent calls to me.
Why couldn't that be exactly what it is? We know kent calls were being played in the area. The ARUs haven't gotten any of the combinations of kent calls, wing noise, or double knocks. No one can confirm any actual birds. To me, it simply makes logical sense that these calls are probably recordings of recordings or recordings of blue jays or other mimickers "playing back" the recordings they heard played.
Again, the recordings are KNOWN to have been played there.
Well Cornell claims that the sequence of sounds do not match any in their known IBWO 1935 database. So by this statement they are saying that it couldn't have been a previously recorded IBWO from their 1935 collection. So assuming Cornell actually did that piece of due-diligence, then you are left with the Blue-Jay theory. We don't have enough knowledge of the IBWOs call to say whether they occasionally make those sour notes heard in the 2005 ARU
recording. Blue Jays tend to be
single-pitched too. I've not heard
any tapes of the KiT-KenT, Kit-KenT
being made of Blue-Jays. But the
2005 and the 1935 recordings have those paired notes. Now there's no telling how much Cornell amplified the 2005 recording and maybe
soft Blue Jay mimicry could have been made into louder IBWO call.
Now I'll have to start paying attention to Blue Jays more :-).
I know Mockingbirds here in the north imitate southern species so
a Blue-Jay could imitate an extinct species too... why not?
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
Again, the recordings are KNOWN to have been played there.
What's your source of this information? Don't you think Cornell kept records of when they played the recordings and perhaps the ARU recordings didn't match up with when they played them?
You'll probably say that there may have been a freelancer in there playing recordings, and while there's a chance that was true, it's pretty unlikely. Yes, Jackson says that the recordings were obtained near a "well-traveled" road, I believe, and also near a campground, but that's not entirely true. The recordings where obtained at a time that that area had restricted access. The road was blocked by a locked gate. Prairie Lakes is always closed off like that during that time of year.
The only sensible alternative is Blue Jays (and actually, that's what I think it probably is, despite the analyses done so far).
What's your source of this information?
Cornell. Cornell was playing these recordings in the area.
So assuming Cornell actually did that piece of due-diligence
Personally, I'm assuming nothing of the sort. They hadn't located the leucistic Pileated(s), they were unaware of Noel Snyder's Pileated/Ivory-Billed look-alike, they hadn't released the photos of the other aberrant Pileateds that they had, they hadn't noticed all the other six-pixel birds in the video, they mistook gunshots for double-knocks in the Pearl in the 2002 search, I could go on an on.
If the recordings had matched the 1935 recordings, that would be presented as evidence it must be IBWOs. Since it doesn't match, that is presented as evidence that it's IBWOs. Pretty much the opposite is true of the skeptics, for different reasons.
You've to match these recordings to birds that are being observed, or they are of almost no value at all, because without seeing the bird, they are too easily misinterpreted and are too subject to a hoax.
Were there proper controls in this experiment? Do they have ARU recordings from other areas to compare? Did they monitor the area carefully enough to make sure the experiment wasn't contaminated by pranksters or even by Cornell team members?
I believe the answers are "no," "no," and "no."
Well there's 2 kinds of matches.
Cornell claims it can run a modern
recording through a computer and determine if it was a re-broadcast
of a 1935 recording. That every recording has enough unique signatures to be matchable. That said, two dissimilar recordings could still be of the same species of bird (or not).
I don't remember where I read Cornell's claim that they checked for rebroadcast of old recordings.
But I know I read it
Any amount of bad faith representation isn't impossible.
I tend to go with the more honest
route despite Cornell's failings.
You could choose to believe Cornell
was dishonest and that's your
right. It's an ineffable argument.
Anyway, the next time you hear a
Blue-Jay making doubled Kent calls
like that, be sure to record it!
I think a Starling is a far better mimic IMHO but I haven't partied with southern Blue-Jays too much.
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
You've to match these recordings to birds that are being observed, or they are of almost no value at all, because without seeing the bird, they are too easily misinterpreted and are too subject to a hoax.
I don't disagree with your first point, but saying it's 'too subject to a hoax' is a little much, IMO, considering the project was still not publically known at the time the recordings were made.
Were there proper controls in this experiment? Do they have ARU recordings from other areas to compare? Did they monitor the area carefully enough to make sure the experiment wasn't contaminated by pranksters or even by Cornell team members?
I don't know if they have recordings made elsewhere as a control, and I agree that would be of some value, but again, I have to really question if the possibility of pranksters. First, who knew there were recorders there? Other than Cornell team members, probably only refuge staff, and what would they have to gain by playing recordings? Having an endangered species on your refuge, particularly one that was believed to be extinct, adds nothing but a huge amount of work. As far as Cornell team members doing it, as I said, I believe you'll find that they actually kept records of when they played recordings, and if it was an attempt to falsify data, I think they could have done a better job at it. Cornell hasn't actually committed to these recordings being definitively being Ivory-billeds, so what's the point then?
Of course I haven't said Cornell has attempted to falsify data. I think they haven't evaluated data objectively, though. It's clear, to me at least, that they concluded on weak evidence that the Ivory-Bill was there, then sifted through volumes of evidence for anything that might support that hypothesis. With that much data, you'll usually find plenty of evidence to support a claim, and if you package it together, and pitch it to an audience who wants to believe what you're saying, it will sound like a pretty good case.
I've heard, like you, that this search was top secret so it couldn't have been subject to any kind of hoax. I was listening to an NPR story on the Ivory-Bill, and they had recordings from an ARU during the initial search. You could hear hunters come up to the ARU and say something to the affect "it must be one of those things trying to record Ivory-Bills." If a boat load of hunters knew about it, you can be pretty sure a whole pile of people knew about it. And something like the Ivory-Bill search is a prime target for hoaxes, it's just the way some people are.
Any way you look at it, I don't think they've proven it couldn't have been a hoax, they haven't proven similar sounds aren't heard in "control areas" far removed from Ivory-Bill habitat, they haven't proved that these kents that don't quite match the old recordings are actually made by Ivory-Bills if they do live, they haven't proven that Jays or other mimickers couldn't make those sounds, etc.
You're right, Cornell hasn't actually committed to the recordings, yet they often refer to the recordings as if they are part of the package of proof.
Actually, not one part of the evidence stands on it's own, and that's why people have referred to this as "a house of cards."
I've heard, like you, that this search was top secret so it couldn't have been subject to any kind of hoax. I was listening to an NPR story on the Ivory-Bill, and they had recordings from an ARU during the initial search. You could hear hunters come up to the ARU and say something to the affect "it must be one of those things trying to record Ivory-Bills." If a boat load of hunters knew about it, you can be pretty sure a whole pile of people knew about it. And something like the Ivory-Bill search is a prime target for hoaxes, it's just the way some people are.
Even though it was originally believed to have been hunters, my sources indicate that it was most likely several USFWS employees involved with that incident.
I'm not arguing against the recordings being crappy evidence, mind you. I just think the hoax theory just isn't all that good. The recordings were made in an area that was gated off at the time and that's a pretty long drive from a town anyway. It would have taken a lot of effort to pull it off, and I just don't see how anyone there would have cared that much to do it.
If a hunter knows enough about Ivory-billeds to be able to make a sound reasonably close enough to the real thing, he would probably also know it was an endangered species...which, if present, could lead to a lot of restrictions of land use.
"Actually, not one part of the evidence stands on it's own, and that's why people have referred to this as 'a house of cards.'"
The skeptical arguments are also built around supposition, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence. Perhap we have two houses of cards. We shall see which one the winds topple first.
If the birds are so smart and wary wouldn't a slow low flying aircraft cause the birds to drive further down into the trees as opposed to flying upward towards the large oncoming predator er I mean aircraft?
I guess we'll be seeing some more blurry videos soon from a different perspective this time.
They're making this far more complicated than it really should be.
Control areas--- how about the Pearl search in 2000-2001? The contrast between those results and the result from Arkansas is telling.
Official results from the Pearl in 2000-2001:
Sightings -- none
ARU recordings of possible vocalizations -- none
ARU recordings of possible raps -- easily determined to have been gunshots.
Photographs or video, blurry or otherwise -- none
No persistent false positives, in spite of high hopes and much anticipation. It is simply not true that people find evidence for this bird's existence anywhere they look based purely on expectation. Here they looked hard with much publicity and corporate sponsorship, and found only one suspicious recording, which they themselves determined to have in fact been nothing.
...Martjan Lammertink spoke about why ivory-bills are so elusive.
I can't help but laugh. Because they are extinct, Martin. Extinct birds are very elusive.
Field Supervisor Elliott Swarthout [said] "I am about to start my third spring here, and I have yet to see or hear the bird. So if you have any ideas, please let me know."
Neither has anyone else, Elliot. The question is, what will it take for you and other believers to understand why? Because they are extinct, and no one has proven otherwise.
Field Supervisor Elliott Swarthout [said] "I am about to start my third spring here, and I have yet to see or hear the bird. So if you have any ideas, please let me know."
Mr.Swarthout is being honest and that's a trait someone intrusted with his responsibilities should have. But there will come a time when he himself will question the validity of the whole enterprise and I trust he will make the right decisions.
If it weren't for the large sums of money involved nor the fact that peoples' reputations are on the line this would just be chaulked up as another episode in the IBWO saga. No real harm done. But it's much too involved now and they all know it.
It didn't have to be this way.
Having watched "Dr. Strangelove" last night, I can just see one of these ultralites piloted by a Slim Pickens, who swears, "I'll find those Ivory Billeds if it hare-lips everybody in Bear Creek." Another fool's errand.
Perhaps they'll paint the undersides of the ultra-lite wings with the IBWO's under-wing patterns?
Why is it so hard for people to wrap their minds around the idea that Cornell & its ARUs might have, at least in part, been "punk'd" by some good ol' boys?
I don't live in AR. I have lived for many years among the same socio-economic stratum that makes up much of the resident population there. They aren't stupid. And they're just irreverent enough of the Ivory Tower to find it absolutely hilarious to snatch the wool over the eyes (or ears) of some very credulous out-of-town researchers.
Jackson, et.al., have made it clear that it wouldn't have been difficult to fake the calls. Heck, they could have gone to the Cornell website to practice by listening to "real" calls. It wouldn't have taken anything more than a reed pinched from a child's band instrument case for a Saturday. Furthermore, a lot of the hunters out there spend a heck of a lot of time in practicing turkey calls, etc., with reeds similar to those to make IBWO calls.
Y'all need to keep in mind the Bigfoot issue. Bigfoot "researchers" have been hashing out the evidence for them for the better part of 50 years. At the same time, the local "common knowledge" among little groups of the PNW's hunters & outdoorsmen has been that there was a healthy cottage industry of Bigfoot "track" manufacturing, etc. There's one town that swears they've known for 35 years who wore the Bigfoot suit in Patterson's infamous movie.
I think that Cornell & gang are in a strong state of denial if they totally dismiss the possibility that the ARU tapes couldn't have been the products of some locals "funnin' with them."
So there is no comment here in response to the contrast between the Arkansas and the Pearl search results? You prefer to ignore rather than address an actual straightforward example that might contradict your hypothesis that expectations wil always lead to positive results regardless of reality?
The searchers did report positive results in the Pearl search. It took months for them to admit that their tantalizing double-raps were gunshots. They also found some tantalizing bark peeling!
Throw in 20,000 hours of random ARU data from the Pearl, and I guarantee that you'll record some tantalizing kent -like calls. Throw in a population of abnormal Pileateds and 20,000 hours of search time by believers, and I'll also guarantee you plenty of one-fieldmark tantalizing glimpses.
Also consider...
There is a big difference between hopes and expectations. At Pearl River hopes were high, but expectations were not. In Arkansas expectations were high fom day one. Pearl River lacked snafus because expectations were not inflated from the beginning.
Expectations do drive honest mis-identifications. All experienced birders know this... and some academics do too.
Seems like y'all are just as good at explaining away inconvenient facts as the "believers" are... maybe better
I dunno, no kents no sightings one false alarm on raps that was straightened out still sounds like a pretty good control to me.
Expectations do drive honest mis-identifications. All experienced birders know this... and some academics do too.
Ain't it the truth.
The Pearl River searchers did not come away saying "We searched hard and found no Ivory-bills, therefore we think it's likely that no Ivory-bills are present."
Just look at what David Luneau said at this link . He actually came away "...more convinced now than ever before..."!
The numerous (3+) aberrant Pileateds kept reports coming in and expectations high. Given the highly charged atmosphere, higher expectations combined with the aberrant Pileateds was a sure recipe for false positives.
Don't think expectations affect observations? Regardless where you sit on the believer/skeptic spectrum, it's obvious that expectations are a primary component in IDing IBWOs. Look at the latest Pearl video by Cinclodes: believers are nearly unanimous in seeing an IBWO, skeptics remain skeptical, at best. Same evidence, seen completely differently by different people.
"All of the people who have seen it fleetingly are true believers and magical things happen to true believers." Dr. Richard Prum
I find Cinclodes' video to be more compelling than Cornells'.There are some nagging things about it that I don't want to comment on but overall I find it intriguing.
I've said all along I believe that IBWOs do exist. I don't believe they're where Cornell says they are however.
I admire the way that Cinclodes is going about his search. I believe he'll eventually get that clear shot. What it will be of finally - who knows?
I wish him all the luck in the world!
I really do.
Post a Comment