The bird in the Luneau video flies in a straight, direct “beeline” flight without changing its wingbeat frequency for 4.5 sec before disappearing among the trees.Now, even Birdforum believer fangsheath has made this admission:
Although it has been suggested that the Luneau bird maintains continuous wingbeats after this, I am unable to chart wing positions much after frame 60.I have yet to find anyone who can chart the wing positions much after frame 60 (which is roughly the 1 second mark).
Can someone tell me why Cornell's claim (above) isn't fraudulent?
(I previously discussed this issue here.)
Posts
8 comments:
Tom;
I would like to ask this general question to everybody and anybody.
______________________________________
Why hasn't any established World Ornithology Department, Bird Group (except Audubon whom I believe feel collectively guilty about the original extinction) stepped forward and challenged CLO?
WHY?
Does anybody have a good answer.
One of the reasons that no one wants to challenge is that you are pretty much saying that "there is no Santa" if you do. Everyone wants to believe, and CLO is doing a cracker-jack job of telling them it is OK to believe and to send in their $$.
The journal Science has essentially closed down the discussion if the IBWO - Kennedy is so obviously protecting CLO that he won't even call for retractions of the most gross mis-steps in the CLO rebuttal (the "montage", the erroneous AR Records Committee was unanimous claim, the flap rate debacle). They are playing a big role in furthering this miscarriage of science, and really need to be taken to task for it.
The AOU checklist committee has not taken it up, and is unlikely to do so.
The ABA checklist folks are the same.
IBWO would not get accepted into either of those committees.
Other than those groups, there is no herd of Ornithology proffesors. Prum, Robbins, Patten, Elphick, Reed, Jackson, Graves etc cover some of the big institutions Yale,Kansas, OK, UCONN, Tufts, So. FLA - not so big, Smithsonian). Sibley, Kaufmann and Dunn cover some of the biggest names in bird ID. All are skeptics.
There are several iron fists ruling the biologists involved in the searches. Remsen has been a bully, the folks at LSU are afraid for their jobs, ditto for Fitz and ML at Cornell. Ditto for USFWS where Andrew's will cut people down if they make him look bad, ditto for TNC where people have been fired for far less than questioning the will of the Board. So don't expect to hear from any of those folks unless they quit.
It seems clear to me that Cornell believed they had spotted an IBWO or two, and they needed a video or photo to back up their claim. They looked at the video and saw what they wanted to see.
According to a Birdforum post, some Pileated wingbeat frequencies counted from new video are above Cornell's claimed range. Lousy science on Cornell's part.
Additionally, Cornell's size measurements have been completely blown out of the water by Cornell themselves, after they changed the position of their IBWO on the tree in their latest rebuttal paper.
If they continue to stand by their wingbeat claims and size measurement claims now that they've had time to think it over and actually had some outsiders evaluate it, it sure seems like fraud to me.
Believers have pretty much retreated back to things that cannot be effectively rebutted: claimed brief sightings.
Cornell saw no IBWOs in AR. I believe their claim will die with a whimper rather than a bang.
To summarize your answer (thanks much).
The AOU and ABA still list the bird as extinct.
The CLO, TNC, FW&S, Audubon powers and their TB followers are going to believe what they wanna believe. Plus cherished institutions don't admit mistakes.
I didn't know Science magazine is such a powerful force. I'm not in academia/science.
A long long whimper rather than a quick bang. That makes sense too.
Well, as far as I can tell, only Remsen still believes at LSU. The rest of the gang just mutter in their breath as he passes by. You can only shake your head in amazement at the first tier reputations that Fitzcrow has taken down with him.
As for fraud, it's more like Tom's other post on how good intentions with bad mistakes eventually have the opportunity to BECOME fraud. That's what happened in Cold Fusion and clearly it is happening or close to happening now.
The CLO 747 is still headed for the mountain. They can still pull up. But will they? Stay tuned.
Tom, I don't think you understand what you have done? Do you realize that by questioning and by providing a place for others to question, you have essentially whittled the evidence down to just a handfull of "sightings".
That's all and that's everything! You've done it! Birdforum, Ivory Bills Live!!, and Bird Id Frontiers all have given up on the Luneau Video. It's toast.
They are all reduced to just arguing that 7 people who had 4 sec and less sightings can't all be wrong. Well, you and I and every real birder knows that's not true. Not only CAN they be wrong. They ARE wrong. That's more definitive than the video ever was.
In many ways, believers are clinging to the weakest part of their case.
Pat yourself on the back, big buddy!
Here's a really lame response to Tom's question: Most definitions of fraud require both intentional deceit and a profit motive. CLO's original Science paper was used to attain funds, but one could reasonably conclude that it was not intentionally deceptive (profoundly wrong-headed, yes, but not a lie). Conversely, the subsequent wing-beat claims were almost certainly intentionally deceptive, but one could reasonably argue they didn't use those claims to secure funding. Firmly tie the wing-beat claims to real money and maybe you've got something.
I'm inclined to agree with others who suggest we're headed into a new era where the Big Woods Discovery is founded solely on the sightings of three seasoned observers (all Explorer Club Award recipients, no less). This is too bad for Gene, Bobby, and Tim because their sightings may be headed for greater scrutiny. So far Sparling has gotten off relatively easy, this may not last...
But back to the wing-beat claim... here Skeptics and Clowns have a common interest...the claim is a total embarrassment that needs to go away. In fact, the whole Luneau Analysis Site has got be be looking like a worse and worse idea all the time. Let's politely inform CLO, that if they take that silly site down there'll be no hard feelings here... both sides win.
"Why isn't this fraud?", you ask. Because long before fraud appeared on this earth, stupidity had already been born.
.
Post a Comment