An excerpt:
Because of the anticipated high response, biologists will only be able to follow up on those reports substantiated with an original photograph or sound recording of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, or other evidence considered substantive by the biologists. Such evidence must be obtained without harassment of the woodpecker. To collect the reward, you must be the first individual to lead a biologist to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker site, and the biologist must be able to take a good quality photo or video of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
Posts
11 comments:
Does anyone find it just a little ironic that these yahoos use Sibley's illustrations to identify the birds, but that they simultaneously say that he is wrong about the identification of the Pileated Woodpecker in the video?
According to Science paper 2: The Rebuttal To The Technical Comment In The Greatest Journal In The World, Sibley can't draw birds - ESPECIALLY woodpeckers. It may be that no one can find IBWO because the artwork is so bad...yeah, THATS IT!
Why can't that nice John Fitzpatrick make them some nice photo montages to ID their birds? Or maybe he could make more of those nice fantasy drawings from Science 1: the Paper to End All Papers In The Greatest Journal In The World. Then we'll get some nice woodpecker sightings.
Hello, Paging Scott Simon...Reality Check for Mr. Simon. Helllllooooooooo?
Can we change that to:
"Finding an objective reporter without Ivy League connections"
Ok, the video has to be better than the Luneau effort.
The sightings have to be better than the Sparling, Harrison, Gallagher, or Fitzpatrick sightings.
And to actually collect the award, you have to nail Fitzpatrick's butt to the roost/nest tree until he sees, videos, and photographs the bird to his satisfaction.
But, by the way, we will accept another crappy sound recording for follow up.
Oh, and Fitzcrow spent $1 million and didn't even cover the habitat. So what the heck maybe amateurs can do a better job with $10,000.
Did god send us this story just for our amusement?
Like, who are these people kidding? If someone like, actually did find and like, document some real IBWO's (which, by the way, would be like, TOTALLY AWESOME!), does anyone seriously believe that the finder would settle for $10K? That's, like, my monthly allowance. I mean, AS IF! Like, that gnarly Harrison dude talked about like, "getting the $1 million picture." I mean, like, I would totally not settle for anything less. That would keep me in designer ghillies for a while.
Valley Girl
This all sounds so familiar... but from where? Oh yeah, from here:
http://www.randi.org/research/
The temptation to build a robotic ivory billed woodpecker and set it pecking at a tree near the freeway is nearly overwhelming.
Whoooa. So, if I get a picture of a paranormal IBWO, or a supernatchal IBWO I'd get, um, $1,010,000.
Maybe CLO oughta try for that!
"Because of the anticipated high response...."
High response from where? Practical jokes? Fishcrow sightings?
Down below Super Anon wrote
Ask to view the 15 minutes before and after the large woodpecker- I'll bet that's been conveniently erased.
Has anyone outside of the "star chamber" seen footage of the 15 minutes before and after the video?
Surely it can't have been erased. Does Science magazine have some requirements relating to the preservation of original data which it chooses to publish?
You know, it just dawned on me why they called the woodpecker "Elvis." The real Elvis has been dead for years but he still made $52 million last year. So, it's only fitting that Elvis the (presumably dead) woodpecker has also made tens of $millions lately. How can a $10,000 reward be competitive when they are making that kind of money without having any real proof?
It's been noted many many times before but every once in a while our decidedly unskeptical media shows why it's part of the problem:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/06/23/ufo.research/index.html
Roe said that a decade from now, researchers should have even better instrumentation at their disposal and better data on UAP of several varieties. His forecast is that scientific rigor will prevail, demonstrating that there are "stable, mobile, unusual, poorly documented phenomena with quite unusual properties manifesting within our atmosphere," he told SPACE.com.
Paradigm shifting
NARCAP has made the case that some of these phenomena have unusual electromagnetic properties. Therefore, they could disrupt microprocessors and adversely effect avionic systems, Roe explained, and that for those reasons and others UAP should be considered a hazard to safe aviation.
"It is likely that either conclusion will fly in the face of the general assertion that UAP are not real and that there are no undocumented phenomena in our atmosphere," Roe continued. That should open the door, he said, to the realization that there's no good reason to discard outright the possibility that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred and may be occurring.
"Physics is leading to new and potentially paradigm shifting understandings about the nature of our universe and its physical properties," Roe said. "These understandings may point the way towards an acceptance of the probability of interstellar travel and communication by spacefaring races."
It's hard to believe that it's 2006. Cue up Leonard Nimoy and the "In Search Of ..." theme music.
The best quote is buried in the middle of the long pandering article:
Being an equal-opportunity debunker, Sheaffer notes that he refutes whatever nonsense, in his judgment, "stands in the greatest need of refuting, no matter from what source it may come, no matter how privileged, esteemed, or sacrosanct ... sacred cows, after all, make the best hamburger." . . .
"UFO believers are convinced that the existence of UFOs will be revealed 'any day now'. But it's like Charlie Brown and the football: No matter how many times Lucy pulls the football away or the promised 'disclosure' fails to happen -- they're dead-certain that the next time will be their moment of glory."
Post a Comment