About Those Plummeting Fertility Rates
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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 To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
10 comments:
From the fine print:
Editor's note: The Lab of Ornithology's bioacoustics team has analyzed the double knocks that Ed and David recorded on their cameras. Analysis was difficult in part because the degraded quality of the recordings after the sounds reached the microphone from a distance or at an angle. The researchers said the sounds were intriguing, though they could not conclude with certainty whether the knocks came from an ivory-bill or from some other source. After ranking all recordings for quality, the researchers will use this season's data to look for patterns in where and when such sounds were recorded in the Big Woods. Such patterns could help direct future search efforts.
_________________________
In other words, CLO rejected the double-knock recording as that of a IBWO. Why, oh why, is it presented at all?
Methinks it may be here to, gasp, confuse people!
It is also interesting that they are going to use the rejected to sounds to help direct future research.
You missed the best quote.
"Our leader for the next two weeks was Beth Wright. She talked quickly and invariably followed every sentence with a laugh."
I wish I had her job!
"Luneau got video of an IBWO. hahahaha. Cornell has had definitive sightings. hahahahah. Only a matter of time. hahahaha. More federal monies is all we need. hahahaha."
Where is our Tom Wolfe? Surely all this material is too good to pass up. A Pulitzer is waiting. And I'm sure our fellow bloggers will donate all the poetry necessary to begin each chapter!!
You skeptics need to get a life. If you have not been to the big woods of Arkansas, then your cynical opinions are based only on what you read instead of what you can see and hear. Visit the big woods of Arkansas before forming your opinions. Once you have been there your tune will change.
Methinks resents being called skeptical, I am a down-right non-believer if you must know. Not agnostic or skeptical - a real athiest am I.
This comes from 60ish years of no evidence that the critter is extant, and a belief that if the beast lived it would have been seen and photographed - or at least a duck hunter would have popped one and bragged about it.
The more CLO tries to make a silk purse out of a sows ear the more I recoil. Spending more time in the southern swamps would make me want it more, but wouldn't change that there is no evidence that it is there, and lots of evidence that it aint.
That said, what passes for my meager life includes hundreds of days in southern swamps (loved every minute) and I will paddle and slog through the White and Cache now that the CLO will not fill the Sweet Gum and Cypress bays with their drivel.
I'll do that and hope to be proven wrong about my atheism, but mostly to say goodby to that icon. This whole mess has made me think that we do need to mourn the loss of this bird - we've lost it twice, and it deserves a good Irish wake.
Sorry to wax all whiney about this, but it is a bloody sad and frustrating tale.
If you skeptics want to be taken seriously, STOP the name-calling!!!
The way it is now, this blog site is a JOKE!!!
Tom Wolfe, or Hunter Thompson, though he's passed on.. "Fear and Loathing on the Bayou De View".
But seriously, despite the sometimes mocking or cynical skepticism, very good appends do appear.
Well you could argue that if the Cuban IBWO survived to the late 80s under diminishing forest health, then the US IBWO could have continued under improving US southern forest health.
Or you could also argue that Lester Short and others were also mistaken in their Cuban sightings of the late 80s. Short was/is a renowned Woodpecker expert who, when he saw the bird in Cuba later exclaimed: "My god, I've seen it".
Of course food for the two subspecies may be completely different. And maybe the warmer temps of Cuba allowed the Cuban IBWO to hang on a bit longer than the US one. (more larvae in fewer trees). sigh, more deskside ruminations!
Paul Sutera
Don't assume all 'skeptics' have never been. Some of us have actually spent two weeks as a volunteer, using Cornell-approved methods. Some of us have gone on our own. And many of us, are skeptical. I'd bet some of Cornell's own folks are skeptical. GASP!
I do have a life, I write skeptical comments on the Ivory Bill Skeptic website.
"This blog site is a joke"
At least we didn't waste millions of dollars on searches, produce a lying film, write a lying book, raise millions of dollars under false pretenses; preach faith based, fanatical ornithology, and unnecessarily raise the expectations of millions of bird loving people.
If this site is a joke then at least the people involved are admitting they are in on the joke.
But maybe some people on the search team also realize how humorous the "rediscovery" has been . Could explain the leader who "followed every sentence with a laugh."
I must admit whenever this topic comes up in conversation at least half of the people break out into a grin. That is why the shorthand LMAO can now be written as IBWO with no problems with interpretation.
Actually, we need to get back to a time of more name calling, not less!
We need to return to the time when IBWO sighting were scoffed at and when reporters of IBWOs were called names. Why? Because then balance will have been returned to the scientific universe. The gods will again be appeased. And stupidity will have its come uppance.
Why? Because no sightings ever follow with proof, no photos, no non-blurry videos, no nothin'. It's just like UFO's. It's just like Bigfoot. No wonder Scientific American will no longer publish Cold Fusion articles.
Yes the science gods are very very angry.
Post a Comment