Here's one paragraph (the bold font is mine):
Early on, we made two important decisions. First, we would work hard through the winter and spring of 2005 to gain as much information as we could about the bird or birds that had been sighted. Our rule was "information first, documentation second," which in part explains why we have so many sightings in the absence of pictures. Fleeting glimpses of a woodpecker flying across an opening brought the binoculars up first, thus in a few cases providing observers with a detailed glance at key field marks for a precious second or two before the bird disappeared. Second, we were determined to treat this as a scientific discovery, not a bird-watching event. Therefore, we needed to accumulate physical, tangible evidence for the existence of the species and to present our best evidence in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal before discussing the discovery in public. We chose Science magazine, the flagship technical weekly published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Our brief article was accepted for publication on April 25, 2005--exactly one year after David Luneau secured the historic video that became the centerpiece of our article. Coincidentally, but for unrelated reasons, our secret began to leak on that same day, so we hastily arranged the news conference in which we made the information public. Editors at AAAS worked feverishly with us for two days to prepare the final version of the paper and its supporting online materials in time for their publication date that week. We owe them special thanks.
Posts
19 comments:
News conferences in which Federal government officials are involved are rarely, if ever, "hastily arranged" at the last minute.
From The Good Doctor Fitzcrow:
Our rule was "information first, documentation second," which in part explains why we have so many sightings in the absence of pictures.
________________________________
Or Methinks you could explain the "absence" of pictures by saying that there weren't any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers of which to take pictures.
This should go under humor, but check out the last few posts on http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=53431&page=140&pp=25
Our friend Jesse (who couldn't ID a black vulture in a pretty decent photo), is thinking about putting up a feeder in the woods for IBWO. But fang, thinks it's a bad idea. These people CRACK ME UP!
This article is old news and more of the same drivel that's been spoon-fed to the public and the media for over a year now. Just reading the paragraph that Tom highlighted, the implication is that most of the information and documentation was being obtained in "winter '05", which would mean early '05. The facts are (and by all means correct me if I'm wrong and/or expand upon/embellish as you see fit) that most of the action occurred in early '04.
Let's review:
--Sparling sees large woodpecker in early '04
--Sparling is talked into calling the bird an IBWO by Mary Scott and the fanatical duo of Gallagher and Harrison.
--Gallagher and Harrison go look and claim to see IBWO on just their second day (conveniently just after Sparling paddled on ahead...)
--Gallagher convinces Fitzcrow to investigate.
--Cornell "A-Team" aka "The Sapsuckers" spends a week in the Big Woods and finds zilch.
--Fitzcrow then floods the Big Woods with Cornell-associated "B-Teamers" through March-April 2004 and PRESTO!, they have a whole bunch of single observer glimpses (="information").
--in late April, Luneau's canoe accidentally obtains the "historical" (=infamous) video (that will later become the emergency "centerpiece" of a bogus article in Science Mag. Neither Luneau or his brother in law see the woodpecker flush, but later they claim that they did. Hmmmm.
--After much secret preparation, there is a full-blown secret search by hired guns from late fall 2004 to April 2005. This search turns up virtually nothing. ARUs record various double-knocky things and kenty things, which will later be used to intimidate the major public skeptics into retracting a paper that will expose the farce.
--By April '05, with nothing much to show except a "cluster" of fanatic/B-Teamer glimpses, Luneau is talked into declaring that his blurry 4/04 video really is an IBWO.
--in late April 2005, dung hits the fan as unauthorized leaks threaten to undercut credit, fame, and glory. The conservation farce of all time is revealed to the public as proof of IBWO rediscovery.
--another full-blown search by hired guns and volunteers from late fall 2005 to April 2006 once again finds zilch.
That's what really happened.
Super Anon
Always nice to read anything written by the eminent Dr. Fitzpatrick, my hero.
But I am amused by this Peacock fiasco. Who are reporters? They are the “communication majors” of the world. They are one step below the “business majors”. We all laughed at them at our respective alma maters.
Communication majors?! You Skeptics do have a sense of humor. I’ll give you that. Quoth the alien, “hahahahahahahahahahahahaha”
Signed,
The True Believer
From bigdad at BirdForum:
While others may be having success, my experience is that wary birds see you long before you see them. Add tangled swamps, inevitable noise of searchers, large remote locations, and the distractions of paddling/wading/walking in the swamp and the odds of capturing any images drops to near zero.
How convenient. The more you search for the IBWO, the less likely you are to obtain physical evidence. What is this guy smoking?
Off topic, but check this news report out. I had no idea that the term "allegedly" has fallen out of use in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5125244.stm
'Extinct' quail sighted in India
The bird is renowned for being shy
A quail believed to have been extinct for nearly 80 years has been seen by a prominent ornithologist in the north-eastern Indian state of Assam.
The Manipur Bush-Quail was seen earlier this month by Anwaruddin Choudhury, a wildlife specialist.
Bird experts say that Mr Choudhury is highly respected and that they believe he saw the quail even though he was unable to photograph it.
"This creature has almost literally returned from the dead," the Wildlife Trust of India's conservation director, Rahul Kaul, told the BBC.
"Although there was always a chance that such a bird could be seen again because of the large expanse of territory it could inhabit in the north-east of India, it's still a very exciting development.
"Now I hope other extinct birds may re-appear, such as the Himalayan Quail - thought to be extinct for 125 years - and the Pink Headed Duck which also had not been seen for a long time," Dr Kaul said.
The February-April 2004 time frame seems critical for understanding the decision to sink tons of resources into the Big Woods. At least that's when all the hopes were highest and people may have first lost their heads.
Then the question for me is, when did they make the decision that the Luneau video was IBWO? We've read about the crazy models and video recreation. But I'd really like to know more about the thought process that went behind turning the blurry bigfoot video into solid IBWO proof--and how that played into the even bigger allocation of search resources in 2005.
By the time the video was put out as "proof", the die was cast. The only change we've had since then is the "the bird has moved on" theory to explain the recent lack of evidence.
Super Anon - You might add this to your chronology: --In July 2005, Tom Nelson started a blog to discuss his issues with the 2004 identifications. (His concerns were soon corroborated by some of the best birders in the world, by insightful contributors to his blog, by some pileated videos, and by a few peer-reviewed articles in science journals.)
The "thought process"
Many bloggers, including me, support the "Iraq WMD" scenario.
My perspective - Cheney wanted Hussein gone (for whatever reasons; spite, revenge, oil, who knows). Bush truly believed that Hussein was evil (isn't he some kind of WMD/terrorist type of fella); Rumsfeld gotta a chance to implement Military Transformation and help out his buddy Cheney at the same time.
Where am I heading with this; once Fitzcrow decided that Gallagher/Harrison had scene an IBWO; visions of eternal fame spread across his vast mind.
The VIDEO is like Niger Uranium. Fake whipped cream on top of the already created Wedding Cake. You can't stop the train once it's out of the station.
It's that simple. They are not bad people just human beings who can not admit a mistake. To their dying days they will not admit the mistake.
Dear Malcolm-
Welcome aboard, and consider IBWO Skeptic/Tom Nelson added to the chronology!
AND,
RE the bigdad birdforum post-
He must have read about "Suank Waves." Check out "An elementary wave particle new to science" in Birding 2006, Vol. 38 (1): p 72. It's very enlightening. Enjoy!
Super Anon
Methinks, that after a careful re-read of the following there is a here-to-fore uncommented-upon linkage.
The good Dr. Fitzcrow says:
"Coincidentally, but for unrelated reasons, our secret began to leak on that same day, so we hastily arranged the news conference in which we made the information public. Editors at AAAS worked feverishly with us for two days to prepare the final version of the paper and its supporting online materials in time for their publication date that week. We owe them special thanks."
_______________________________
Who? who? who? was the leaker, and why would they choose that time to leak it? Who could ossibly have leaked that information?
Hmmmm. Methinks knew people who knew about "the secret" in some form or another for months before the "announcement" - that period of "leaking" was subtle, and everyone was content to just whisper about it. CLO wouldn't answer any questions, even direct questions, so we all thought they had good evidence and needed to keep it quiet to get some conservation strategies in place. Fair enough, we all sat on our hands and were nice and quiet.
So we have the Good Doctor Fitzcrow sending in the ms. He needs it worked on quickly. Quickly enough to avoid anyone suggesting that the team of reviewers suggested by him - and chosen by the Good Doctor Kennedy - should include. oh lets say Jerry Jackson, or maybe a bird identification expert.
Dr Crow knows that if it gets reviewed by anyone who knows how to ID the bird, he is freakin sunk.
So then, how about the Good Doctor Fitzcrow leaks it...that puts a big Hurry Up on it, and eliminates the need for any further review from the plebian blabbermouths like that Jackson.
You bet he owes "special thanks" to AAAS editors for rushing through the greatest natural history blunder in a hundred years.
You bet he owes them thanks for working "feaverishly" on it (maybe it was the feaver that kept them from seeing 33.3?).
I think CLO leaked it to fast track it and to keep Jackson et al. from getting a look at it before publication.
No one, and I mean no one, but CLO benefitted from the leak.
That timiline, Mr. Methinks, works for me. I think you have it figured out.
Well my conspiriatorial, must be kept anonymous methinker, apparently this was "leaked" far and wide but the interesting thing has always been the relationship between the editors of Science and and Fitzcrow - this "fever" that both men, kenedy and fitz describe is important since both men write about it in their editorial spaces. This "rush" this urgency was integral to the real peer review occuring after the publication, after the cover art, after the NYT and NPR ran the story clean of any "skeptics" it was "hooray for the team led by Fitzcrow" ... "huzzah, huzzah, the lord god bird lives in AR" ...
No reporter seems to want to get at this so, Methinks ought to lay this out a little clearer.
Can anyone provide a timeline of jackson in all this? When does he hear the rumor?
Also why wouldn't he be selected as a peer to review?
How did fitz and kennedy insure that the peer review would not turn out to be a version of sibley et al, or of Tom Nelson, after watching the video? Or any of the legion of skeptics?
How did the peer review turn into a feverish "amen" ?
It isn't like some "nobody" has questioned the "evidence" the evidence is so lame that even dumb as shit jobless bloggers in MN pick it apart like pheasant in a combine ... the thing has more Ha Ha's than an alien blogpost.
How did the peer review go so far wrong, not even a "33.3 WTF?" from the gang?
There must be some physical evidence. Someone get it to someone, like the world twitch lunatic ... he'll post it, he doesn't give a rats ass about his job.
Who? who? who? was the leaker, and why would they choose that time to leak it? Who could ossibly have leaked that information?
-------------------
I believe the person who leaked was Mary Scott. She mentioned the sighting on her website and that's what started this whole thing rolling. I remember reading her site the evening before the news spread like wildfire.
Why did she leak it? I don't know. Maybe her friend the Ivory-billed whisperer played a Jedi mind trick on her (weak-minded fool!). Why does she live in a yurt? And what exactly is a yurt? Are people who live in yurts prone to leaking? Do yurts leak? So many questions...
With regard to the timing and source of the "leak"...remember that the entire team had a fully opertional set of websites ready to go on day one, as well as a fully produced NPR piece, not to mention senators and cabinet members waiting in the wings, logos, press releases, etc, etc,. If science was the priority, and the scientific publication process was frantically rushed by a unexpected "leak", how did they manage to get every other piece of the puzzle slick, polished, and ready to go in a perfectly orchestrated fashion? None of these matters, presumaby of lesser priority, show any sign of being rushed.
This certainly fits the Fitz theorey as offered by the wily Methinks.
Carpenterio mi amore,
I don't think the paper was reviewed, as much as consecrated. How could it have been reviewed when the best bird ID folks in the country were not asked to look at it? How could it get reviewed and edited in a few weeks?
CLO may have sent in a list of potential reviewers. Science may have used some of them, or gotten their own. They were "woodpecker" people, not bird ID people, and at least one now thinks it is a PIWO in the video.
I need to guess that Jackson wasn't picked because Fitz asked that he not be picked. Science may be sloppy, but not so sloppy that they wouldn't ask him.
Science didn't know how the review was going to turn out. But by making sure they didn't have any Bird ID experts on the pannel of the reviewers they did insure that the ID wouldn't be questioned. This is very important - ornithologists are by trade overtrained in minutia, and often left their "hobby" of bird ID behind. They also hate to be wrong, so they wouldn't question the ID - only a few people have enough Bird ID Street Cred to do that.
I bet there is no word in the reviewers comments about the other potential ways to look at that video. I bet they were "blinded by the white" (which, I hope turns up soon in a poem). They didn't want to let anyone know they didn't know about deinterlacing and potential video interpolation errors.
The main piece of evidence in that paper is the video, scientists are used to evaluating data streams and the statistical interp. of those streams. Visual information is another thing entirely. We are much more suggestable to someone else's interp. of visual data. They read the paper, see the video (deinter-interp-zoomed) and see what they are told to see. It aint a PCA analysis or an ANOVA - it is visual, messy and, they are told, very freakin exciting HURRY UP!
It takes weeks for even the best Bird ID in the country to understand what is in that video.
I don't know if Jackson knew the rumors, and if he asked and was rebuffed like others. Lets ask him.
Hey Jerry,
When did you forst hear about this debacle - in rumor and in fact?
Cheers,
The Wiley Methinks
Sorry for the typo:
Dear Jerry,
You are a patient god-like man. Can you tell us when you first got wind of the CLO IBWO - both in rumour and in fact?
Cheers,
Methinks
So, if there is a rule "information first, documentation second" we might explain it as a function of "wishful thinking first, rationalization second."
Post a Comment