Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
Mission Accomplished10 hours ago
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction6 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought6 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係10 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To11 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
19 comments:
And what would have been so bad about saying "no comment"?
Again, the timing of the leak only benefitted CLO. The web sites were ready to go, Timmies books were printed and just sitting in a warehouse! What a waste!
The leak kept the paper from getting looked at by anyone with ID Cred, and made it fact before it was sufficiently reviewed.
It was a brilliant move by a Master at The Top of His Game. It is going to take YEARS to unravel it methinks.
(PS Yes, yurts leak. Does she really live in a yurt?)
Okay, somebody tell me, please! Who was the so-called leaker and where did the leak occur? I've seen only that it was on a major listserv, or something to that effect. Am I the only one still in the dark?
"pileated on steroids"
"clown like face"
"herky jerky behavior"
How can you Skeptics not be convinced after that description?
TB
Good News! I just received an advance copy of Sibley's newest edition of Guide to Birds. He's updated the Ivory Bill data and description based upon the latest Fitzpatrick data.
Enjoy!
"The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Considered by some as the Lord God Bird itself. So godlike in it’s clown-like face that once seen it’s never forgotten. Like a Pileated on steroids it herks and jerks too and fro. An unforgettable sight that inspires many. The topper is the extra long long, unusually long, neck crowned by a long unusually narrow pointed crest, not at all like that bushy, oh so bushy and ratty, crest on it’s poorer cousin the Piliated. The black is the blackest black you will ever hope to see. Note especially the snow white of the wings blending into the dullest yellowest yuck just at the tips of the secondaries."
Hmmmm...
John Fitzpatrick's plenary address as transcribed by Laura Erikson:
Monday, 25 April 2005
o 3:00 pm--Science accepts paper
o 9:00 pm--The Leak!
Auk Clarifications to Jackson's Perspective (my bold):
"On the evening of 25 April 2005, an individual not involved in the search learned about it inadvertently and posted news of the dicovery on a nation-wide listserv. ... We submitted the article on 5 April and received official acceptance plus editorial and referee comments on 26 April. Coincidentally, the latter date was the same day that news of the rediscovery, accompanied by a host of of inaccurate rumors, spread rapidly over the Internet following the previous evening's leak."
I always thought the timing in the Auk piece looked suspicious. I don't know how accurately Laura transcribed John's plenary address but it seems a bit convenient to imply that the acceptance came before the leak rather than after. So did acceptance come on the 25th or 26th? When did Cornell/Science find out about the leak if the acceptance came on the 26th. Maybe Cornell got their facts mixed up in the Auk piece like the number of minor missteps they've made in their Science articles (e.g., "Whoops, not those 6 pixels, these 6 pixels.").
I've heard rumors that the leak might have been traced back to the TNC, possibly a board member? Anyone heard any other details?
So what was the contents of "the leak post," who posted it, when and where did they post it?
anonanon
I was at the plenary lecture. There were many mindless groupies present, who went "ooooooo-aahh" each of the 50 times that the video was replayed. I guess they tuned-out the skeptics in the audience who occasionally sneezed "rip-off" a la Dr. Evil's son SCOTT!
And, there was plenty of muttering in dark corners afterward. But, there was still some apprehension about being openly skeptical as this was right after Cornell had played the audio evidence card to fend off Robbins, Prum, and Jackson.
RE Sparling, Fitzcrow avoids mentioning how Sparling's description got better and better over the months, with (I believe) at least 4 different published versions.....
Super Anon
Another account from "The Grail Bird":
"By late April the article had been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, and we thought we might have a couple of weeks to catch our breath and prepare for our May 18 announcement, tentatively planned for Arkansas. But it was not to be."
"On April 25, 2005, exactly one year after David Luneau shot his historic videotape, word of the rediscovery began leaking out -- at first just a trickle, then an overwhelming dam burst as the news spread around the world on the Internet."
So the April 25th leak date seems pretty solid, it's the Science acceptance date that seems a bit squishy.
anonanon
Good News, redux!
Www.fishcrow.com has just announced that further discombobulation of the entangled gases of his blurry video has revealed a definite Ivory Bill.
He's so excited that he is almost breathless on Birdforum dot Net. He should post the video soon so that all this IBWO stuff will be put to rest. Once and for all.
I'm so proud to be the one to bring you this great news.
Last week we had a link to the Harrison piece in BWD... he goes on to say that Sparling reports the following (note, reports the following after talking to Gallagher and Harrison)
"The back had a big white patch, but it was a dirty white - seemed to have a yellow tinge to it. The head was really strange, a big whitish bill and a pointed topknot that looked real cartoonish. After it saw me it moved around the tree in jerky movements, like it was really nervous. After moving around the trunk, it hitched up the tree and flew off. When it flew, I noticed that the white on the wings was in the wrong place and there was too much white for a pileated woodpecker."
Why doesn't Fitzcrow list the white Mother Freakin BILL in his description. It is the most important field mark among the herky jerky topknot characters listed.
Methinks the moving target of the Sparling-Harrison-Gallagher sightings needs to be tracked down with the inconsistencies highlighted.
Fot John: The "leak" was when people started posting on the internet. There had been a tacit leak for months this wasn't the incredibly well kept secret they are making it sound like. Some people finger Mary Scott, some finger folks at USFWS, some finget TNC CLO board. I say it was the Fitzcrow himself setting some dog off a leash.
Oops, it appears that fishcrow is writing a "paper" on his latest findings
Who are fishcrow's peers? As in..who will peer review this paper? Let's see...Luneau, obviously, the alien, TB, Gallagher, Bobby, Jim Fitzpatrick....hmmmm...who else?
Where's the beef, er, leak? I can't seem to find the alleged 9 p.m. 4/25/05 leak in any national listserv archive.
Bush is taking Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi to see Elvis today. Rumor has it that Brinkley has been invaded by men in black with dongles hanging from there ears. Either the alien has decided to make an appearance there or Koizumi has insisted on meeting both Elvis and Ivory Bill in the same day.
Stay tuned.
This entire IBWO thingy has everything. Japanese PMs, Elvis and Peacocks. What next?
Anonanon-
When thou quoteth from the good book (aka Grail Bird), it would behoove thou to give chapter and verse for the masses.
Thanks,
Super Anon
see Kenedy's editorials for dates and times of the communication between him and fitz and the religious blessings
My bad, Tim's account of the acceptance and leak are in the Afterword added to the paperback edition of "The Grail Bird" (c) 2006.
(Interestingly the front cover of the paperback has a quote from Sibley, "A unique and personal perspective on what could be one of the most significant ornithological events of the last hundered years.")
Is there a link to the Kennedy editorials with the dates and times. The editorial I found only had a date for the announcement:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/308/5727/1377
anonanon
Fitzcrow graciously took 2-3 questions at the end of the plenary lecture (all likely choreographed ahead of time), one of which was from a reporter type who wanted Fitzcrow to respond to the reports of skepticism about the video and the rediscovery. Fitzcrow said that he "understood if, for some, their standard is 'seeing is believing'."
Well, I wouldn't need to see the IBWO in person- it would be comforting enough to know that they still existed. My personal standard would be "SEEING SOME FRIGGIN DATA (that represents proof) IS BELIEVING," and that hasn't happened.
I will continue to emphasize that none of this would have ever happened except for the following three historical events:
1. Remsen declares Kulivan's Pearl River sighting as credible, April 1999.
2. Remsen cedes control of IBWO mythology to Fitzpatrick/Cornell during and after the Zeiss search of the Pearl.
3. Fitzpatrick (influenced, of course, by Gallagher) declares the Sparling sighting as credible. Of course, that was also influenced by the "dyslexic duo" sighting, which I completely dismiss as, well, fanatical ravings mixed with dylexia.
Those declarations (essentially based on hearsay)and that alliance are 100% responsible for vast accumulations of NEGATIVE data, and the investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars (at first, in the Pearl), and now tens of millions of dollars in AR, LA, TX, FL, SC.
Does RemFitzsenPatrick really believe like Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld? Maybe. Will they ever admit that they made a mistake? Probably not. But should they still be held accountable? Yes.
Have a good 4th everyone (except Peacock)...
Super Anon
If you look real closely at:
http://fishcrow.com/venus_transit.jpg
methinks you'll see an Ivory-billed woodpecker on the lower right side of the sun.
Anon wrote
(Interestingly the front cover of the paperback has a quote from Sibley, "A unique and personal perspective on what could be one of the most significant ornithological events of the last hundered years.")
I just wanna add..."or not." I think he left it out.
Post a Comment