6/8/06 update--the following information appears at the end of this article:
Leslie Newell Peacock writes for The Arkansas Times, where a version of this article first appeared. She is also the journalist whose researcher husband managed to keep the ivory-billed woodpecker a secret from her for 14 months.
Posts
9 comments:
What do we make of this quote?
"After examining some 80 films of flying pileated woodpeckers, Fitzpatrick says he’s sure the video is not of a “typical pileated.”
So it's not a definitive IBWO? As Fitz published in Science. It admits it could be a NOT-TYPICAL PILEATED.
Oops, is Fitzcrow cracking here? We are making progress, Skeptics!!
(Of course, anyone that looks at the PIWO videos will realize that even yet Fitz has it wrong! Luneau's video is of a normal PIWO.)
what ever happened to the leslie peacock / jack hitt kerfulffle over the 13 ways of looking at a blackbird thingie ...
didn't quite make it to the opel mehta stage did it?
but now peacock is back ... and she appears to be be a skeptics sckeptic ... good on you leslie, lets watch this girl, so far we only have her and the guy at the trib.
But I love how simon and fitzcrow canät be reached for comment anymore. But most of all I love how the guy who saw the bird and recorded the "quality of the whiteness" on his voice mail in wyoming because he couldn't find his pencil, is pre-emptively defining the ridicule. "yes I saw a field mark, it was definitely the bird, but now I will probably be ridiculed.
shame on you skeptics. Tom Nelson, why do you hate conservation?
Methinks first noted the title, which appears to be borrowed from the twice-posted "Lord God What A Mistake" on this very blog, puts the good Ms. Peacock in a bit of self-appointed trouble. I point this out not out of vanity, but rather because she went to all sorts of crazy on Hitt because of the "13 Ways of Looking at a Woodpecker" title (which she had never used and tried to claim as her own). Somebody, get a legal minion from our press department to post a press release decrying her fact-checking, general cleanliness, and journalistic integrity! "Now maybe big fancy real journalists from Arkansas don't read our little blog but this sure is close to plagiarism" would do nicely.
Now perhaps her title is coincidental to that posted on this blog twice (just a few days ago methinks), or perhaps it was borrowed. Eiter way she really should apologise to Hitt for claiming he nearly a plagiarist, now that she has made the same mistake.
That said (sort of badly, but you know what I mean) Fitzcrow still can't label the bird correctly (his sea of double negatives and nearly supported waffling is so lame), the rest of the "Team" are not available for comment anymore - even though they took our money and ran with it, there is a book on AR birds where sightings are considered definative (but I bet not ALL sightings, just the ones they wanted to accept), they don't even have freakin pencils for the Lord God's Sake, and most of all, after millions and millions of dollars we wish Dr. Luneau was more "excited".
They are still relying on the 4 second video, the erroneous flap rate, because they found nothing else. When will it end!
Methinks also wants to point out that Fitzcrow et al. said repeatedly that the AR Records Committee was unanimous. It is in the rebuttal to Sibley et al. in Science, which surprised everyone who knew the AR Committee - we knew there was one dissenter. The committee rushed their decision to come out before Sibley et al., and should reopen the record. They need to - include comments from Sibley, Dunne and Kaufman - and you could add Pyle, Jackson and Howell too - at least bring in the most well-known bird ID experts before you accept it fellas.
Fitzcrow published this "error of fact" (that the AR Committees decision was unanimous when it never was, and always had a dissenter) in his Science rebuttal piece, and like the photo-montage crap, and the bogus wing-beats, it too needs to be retracted.
I also wonder why Fitzcrow needs to always claim "repect" of Sibley? This is just a debate about science, why does Fitzcrow always trot out this personal crap?
I think it's been said before, but this bird is not a Super Secret Skulker able to avoid human contact with a single bound. No, he is actually seen remarkably often.
No, it a 3 or 4 second bird able to morph into a PIWO after only that amount of time.
He's not even quite a Schrodinger's Cat, because that would be instantaneous conversion upon the first glimpse. No, this is more like a Quantumly Entangled Gas that has escaped some high-tech weapons lab. A large group of molecules able to change together just at the split second before definitive indentification.
It's really the only explanation.
Skeptics! I love you. You know I do. Therefore, I’m going to try to save you.
I’ll bet you that not many of you are atheists. Why? There’s just no percentage in it. You have to cover your bases. You know that aetheists are just burned in hell immediately on death. They don’t first get to meet with the BIG GUY and make excuses. They just get burnt.
It’s the same reason you should come over to my side. Cover your butts. Imagine what will happen when Texas or Carolina discovers nesting pairs of IBWO. You have left yourselves no escape path. You will be burnt in all the blogs. The laughing stocks of the world.
There is no better reason to believe. (And that's the word)
Signed,
The True Believer
Well assuming CLO thought the IBWO was extinct, wouldn't they bore of search (we may be seeing that now)?
I mean they are spending this money on searching and ARUs and remote cameras and rainjackets and maybe a few expense accounts, but I don't think their personal fortunes have been enhanced by the "discovery". So I don't see the pecuniary malice in all this.
It's more of a power/reputation thing. And the general public - even the birding public - is blissfully unaware - so far.
And all I got is a blurry video and my own anecdotal Blue Jay evidence.
The latter just knocked me down when I heard these Northern Blue Jays just kit-Kenting away. And now the only IBWO "food for thought" comes from this blog, tastes less exciting but somehow nourishes. Even BirdForum has some PIWO action photos that seem to cast yet more doubt on Luneau.
This PIWO looks even more IBWO than Elvis did.
Paul in New Paltz NY
Ok, TB, I for one do not want to be "burnt". So I'm with you. I'm ready to repent.
Just one thing though, I've seen so many videos and photos of PIWO that I can't remember what an IBWO looks likes.
I certainly don't want to get to the Pearly Gates and try to bluff my way in. Could you post a recent photo of an IBWO?
Thanks.
Go look at that post of the IBWO in Fitzcrows moustache!
Post a Comment