About a year later, I'm still somewhat stunned at the inexplicable Prum and Robbins quotes here.
My thoughts at the time are here.
Would any of you (anonymous?) folks care to share your thoughts on the "real story" of Prum and Robbins withdrawing the paper (while Jerome Jackson was out of the country)?
Saturday
2 hours ago
Posts
14 comments:
Tom;
Since you asked, my guess is that back in August 2005 there was so much peer pressure they folded in the heat. I would have folded too.
Jackson is incredibly good at hedging. Jackson say's I ain't saying there is and I ain't saying there ain't.
The AOU conference was right around the corner, CLO was bringing in the heavy armor troops to make their case.
You have multiple power players aligned against you, who wants to stand out in the crowd. Who wants to be ostracized from civil birding society.
I don't believe that Robbins or Prum are afraid of being ostracized. Basically, the 11th hour claim by CLO was that they had audio "proof," and they allowed Robbins-Prum to listen to the key sound bites. So, CLO played the audio card plus they said that they had a bazillion more hours of tape that hadn't yet been analyzed. At that point, Robbins-Prum were compelled to withdraw. But, when push came to shove, even CLO wouldn't say that the audio evidence was 100%, and the whole audio thing was clearly a bully bluff. So, the real question is, why haven't Robbins, Prum et al. reorganized for a renewed assault?
CLO played the audio to Prum claiming it was real hard evidence. Prum took them on their word. CLO then presented the audio as inconclusive. Nice bait and switch on CLO's part - worked perfectly.
I wouldn't assume that Prum et al. are NOT working on anything, but in this overheated world (there is a rumour that CLO will present new evidence at the AOU in Mexico, but that seems to just be rumour)they (and anyone else so inclined) would be wise to hold their cards close to their chest.
So, the real question is, why haven't Robbins, Prum et al. reorganized for a renewed assault?
I think many in the U.S. ornithological community are simply standing back and just waiting for this to die a wimpering death. I imagine that they see little to gain (scientifically) from going on the offensive and, as some have posted here, there is the potential for professional ramifications.
anonymous says "Jackson is incredibly good at hedging."
Not so. I believe that you'll find that Tom thinks the same way. So do I. We just don't believe the evidence presented thus far comprises proof.
In my opinion, the evidence presented thus far isn't even interesting!
Weeping observers won't move me, either.
It is my understanding that Robbins and Prum, captivated at first by the kent-audio, quickly became disenchanted with it when certain details were borne out about the location proximity to highways and other factors which led to skepticism.
I also believe that they chose not to publish anything due to the then forthcoming Jackson and Sibley papers.
I seriously doubt that Mark Robbins fears being ostracized.
It's not going to 'die a wimpering death" as long as the Head Vampires continue to perpetuate IBWO Mythology with apparent impunity.
Robbins and Prum simply allowed CLO to prove that no IBWO's exist in Arkansas, and they did a thorough job! The birding community weighed the evidence and the vast majority recognized the difference between truth and fancy.
Guess you need a new subject to blog about - this one's dead in the water.
you're right about this blog being dead -- Prum and Robbins were convinced by the acoustic evidence, and if they're in the ornithological loop at all, by now they know that IBWOs exist, as others will in due time.
cyberthrush,
I'm in the loop and the latest video evidence I've seen is more crap. Can you honestly say you've seen new evidence and it is unequivocal?
I mean really unequivocal? I mean bill, face, back, wings.....just what you get when you video a bird you can actually ID.
You've gone over the deep end, Cyberthrush, hope you can swim.
Dear C-Thrush-
I'm sorry to have to inform you that no sooner had Robbins and Prum withdrawn their debunkment paper than they knew that they had been duped by CLO. They are both publicly on record as continuing to be non-believers. They also knew that Sibley et al. were independently trashing the Luneau video. So, as anonymous points out, they sat back and watched CLO hang itself.
If there is solid IBWO evidence out there, then why is it being kept cloaked in secrecy? So that the players can milk it as long as possible before it's actually made public and turns into a Pileated? This has been the modus operandi of those who would claim to have seen an IBWO- they either can't get hard evidence or, if they do, then it turns into a Pileated under scrutiny. This has happened countless times since the species disappeared from the Singer Tract in the 1940's (and often photographers still insist that it's an IBWO after being told that it's an obvious Pileated....), but hard evidence hasn't been produced once.
Please return to your parallel Universe of Denial.
Cyberthrush,
What do you mean by "due time"?
Is that 1 week, 1 month, 1 year,
etc.? Please give us a time frame.
The suspense is killing us. We've
been waiting soooo long for the
absolute proof.
cyberthrush said...
"you're right about this blog being dead -- Prum and Robbins were convinced by the acoustic evidence, and if they're in the ornithological loop at all, by now they know that IBWOs exist, as others will in due time."
BOGUS!!
The last time I find Prum quoted in a news article is from this past May:
"It matters a whole lot whether this is real or not," Prum said, "because things we really know are threatened or endangered are losing funds to this potentially mythical beast."
From the article "No Bird In The Hand" - The Hartford Courant May 26, 2006
He's quoted as referring to the IBW as a "potentially mythical beast." Doesn't sound like he's too convinced about the sound recordings anymore!
Post a Comment