Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
6 comments:
Hi Tom,
Clearly cyberthrush has a huge chip on his shoulder. He also has a huge ego - note that he puts a quote from himself alongside quotes from Mark Twain and Jerome Jackson no less.
I just don't get this idea that skeptics are to blame for the demise of the IBWO. Ornithologists around the world these days are used to bird species re-discoveries and these are backed up with photos or good descriptions. Expeditions are mounted even when likelihoods of success seem fairly low - IBWOs in Cuba 2nd, 3rd, 4th time round, Pink Eareedd Duck etc.
So, the comunity is receptive to re-discoveries and even new species. So it can't be the skeptics - it must be the people who are claiming the birds.
What a load of crap! Gallagher played up the derision of Lowery. I've talked DIRECTLY with someone that was at that AOU meeting, that knew and respected George Lowery AND that has been looking for IBWO and following up on leads for over 40 years! Most birders/ornithologists were simply concerned that George Lowery was being duped by someone. They were concerned for his reputation and WERE NOT the ones to besmirch it. In fact Gallagher's the only one to suggest it was besmirched by birders/ornithologists. That this lie persists is a tragedy.
EVERY GOOD LEAD on IBWO WAS followed up by birders keen to confirm the bird. These reports WERE NOT summarily dismissed. WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP!
Cyberthrush SHAME ON YOU! Get your facts straight. Speak to birders over 65 and get some real answers.
The USFWS never declared the bird extinct and most birders always held out hope for it's continued existence. Some making SH*T up Cyberthrush.
Can you tell I'm mad. Did I use enough CAPS?
Yeah, skeptics are the problem. Not at all the greed and ignorance that felled huge swaths of bottomlands and longleaf pine forests.
Idiot!
Oh, boy! Cyberthrush is circling his wagons. If Ivory-billed isn't proven to exist, it's because skeptics let it go extinct, but it really was there all along. The only reason it hasn't been found for 50 years is because of the hostile environment created by skeptics. Puh-lease.
I'm not speaking here of all the Johnny-come-lately, leap-on-the-bandwagon skeptics who barely even know all the issues involved and were putty in the hands of others
...and now he's just babbling. Pathetic.
cyberthrush said... And famously, ornithologist George Lowery came to regret ever publicly disclosing the Fielding Lewis Ivory-bill photos of the 70s which he believed were authentic (but others thought not), due to the tarnishing that it brought his reputation.
I too would be pretty skeptical if somebody told me "here's a recent photo of a bird thought to be extinct, but the photographer is anonymous and refuses to say where it was taken."
And would good would it have done to believe that it was real? The photographer refused to reveal the location of the bird. Even if the photo is genuine, it's worthless if verification is impossible.
And what does cyberthrush think the skeptics should have done? Mounted searches in every potential Ivory-billed habitat because one bird possibly existed someplace in the country?
Cyberthrush needs to think before he blogs. His anti-skeptic rants don't make any sense. He should be ranting at Fielding Lewis for keeping the location secret, thus making it impossible for people to protect the area and study the bird.
Who is this strange c-thrush person? I believe it is quite fair to say that all anyone ever wanted (post-1950) was solid evidence of where IBWO persists (sadly, a bird had to be shot, back before the advent of modern cameras and tape-recorders). If multiple people claim to have seen the species yet NONE of them ever provides clear, irrefutable evidence of the bird and a precise location for it... then what are we to believe about those sightings? Well, considering it's a species on the brink of extinction if not already gone, we MUST be at the very least "skeptical" of them and especially so if follow-ups don't produce solid evidence of this huge, noisy, woodpecker. Is that so complicated? I'm sick of reports of IBWO, Eskimo Curlew, and Bachman's Warbler that are based solely on brief sightings, or on unbelievably poor-quality imagery or audio such that it actually has to be "interpreted" extensively in order to be examined!!! After 50+ years of this, is THAT "skepticism" so hard to understand? Since you had the bright idea, C-thrush, why don't you go ahead and stick your finger way down your throat, right now. When you feel better, I suggest you write a proper reinterpretation of your own poorly considered message.
Cyberthrush said..
“1. fewer individuals seriously searched for the birds than would otherwise have been the case, let alone any large-scale, organized, meaningful searches being done” (because of the baseless premise of extinction)…
Suggests that birders would be timid about looking for a bird thought to be extinct. Actually, birders have constantly followed up on IBWO reports throughout the years, often with organized, detailed group searches. None of these searches ever produced an IBWO.
“4. the few individuals (hunters/trappers/fishermen, NOT birders) who routinely entered likely Ivory-bill environs were never given any incentive to report the species if encountered”
Assumes that birders never entered the environs? Sportsmen, many of whom are also birders, really don’t need “incentives” for reporting rarities. Many routinely report noteworthy bird sightings, often with accompanying photos. The fact that none have found IBWOs might be easier explained that there just haven’t been any to find, rather than lack of incentives.
“… Whether enough remain now to yet bring their numbers back time will tell, but skeptics cannot just blithely escape their negative role in the last 50 years and the 'waste-of-time' feeling that they promote….…I
……'m not speaking here of all the Johnny-come-lately, leap-on-the-bandwagon skeptics who barely even know all the issues involved and were putty in the hands of others, but of the prominent ones who over time set the agenda, preached extinction, and prejudiced the birding majority. If IBWOs are confirmed, those skeptics, after years of obstructively smirking at the foolishness of IBWO believers”
Totally inaccurate. Many of those who are branded as “skeptics” are the same “prominent” people who have held out a belief that IBWOs may still exist, and have tirelessly searched for them.
Post a Comment