2. From Blue Crab Boulevard here.
3. Fitzpatrick sidling towards the exit?
I'd linked to this article before, but an alert reader pointed out an interesting quote (the bold font is mine):
John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, who has led the search for the woodpecker in Arkansas, hailed the Florida find as strong evidence.Update: Lest we forget, check out what Fitzpatrick was allegedly saying as recently as last month.
"It's tantalizing, it's suggestive, it's not conclusive, but in the aggregate, evidence is strong that the bird is there," Fitzpatrick said in a telephone interview.
He was sympathetic to Hill's problems in getting a photograph, and acknowledged widespread doubts about the bird's existence.
"I've been accused of being a Bigfoot searcher," Fitzpatrick said, referring to the mythical beast of American folklore. "I just believe that it is a very important priority for us to search all of the places where this bird may be hanging on, and once and for all find out where they still exist, if they do."
4. Excerpts from this Walton Sun article (the bold font is mine):
...The team’s evidence that the Ivory-billed woodpecker exists here in Florida was 30 times greater than what was offered in the Arkansas sighting, Davis said...Last year’s announcement brought hundreds of birders to Brinkley, said Sandra Kimmer, of the Brinkley Chamber of Commerce.Note the past tense used by "Kimmer".
From a chamber perspective, Kimmer said, “I loved the attention it brought to our wonderful beautiful swamp where the bird might have been. Everybody loves a comeback story, and it was a comeback story.”
5. From the Cornell Daily Sun:
Finally, this week researchers admitted the Ivory Billed Woodpecker discovered by Cornellians recently is VILLAINOUSLY missing. No one’s really seen in it in the last year – oops? Their funding has been cut because they have not yet found a nest. However, ornithologists in Collegetown believe that the large, amorphous structures outside Sheldon Court might just be the long lost nests. That, or Big Bird’s Play Pen.6. More baloney from Tim Gallagher here.
For example, did Gallagher really tell the audience that he and a "colleague" were dressed in camouflage when they saw their "Ivory-bill"?
Note that in Gallagher's "The Grail Bird", there is a picture of Sparling/Gallagher/Harrison taken on 2/27/04 "shortly after they saw an ivory-billed woodpecker". No one is wearing camo.
Posts
6 comments:
Tyler Hicks' field notes are cited as the best, but his sketch from 27 May is not credible as a depiction of the bird as it was viewed because it cannot be reconciled with the post facto diagram of his position underneath the bird
I'm a believer, but I do agree that Fitzpatrick is trying to cover his ass with little remarks such as "if they do."
"if they do"
Yes, I saw that too. The Carpenterio pretty well has Fitzcrow pegged. He's moving away from the issue. Auburn is his cover.
I still wonder if he egged Auburn on to publish? Obviously, as Carpenterio says, Fitzcrow is one shrewed dude. He had to know what he was advising Auburn to do and what it meant?
Dr. Hill, any comments on this?
Gallagher story
He set out on its trail not knowing if he'd see one himself, but at least wanting to learn about the subculture of birders who are fascinated by the creature
Stockholm syndrome.
and who at times are demonized by skeptics who think the periodic sightings are bogus.
LOL! Oh, those pesky skeptics.
The last universally accepted sighting and photos were in the 1940s, before the forest was harvested for wood by paper mills. Subsequent sightings were treated like rumors of Bigfoot, Gallagher said.
Huh. When is the last time a worthless crappy video of Bigfoot was featured in Science magazine?
ibwo aetheist...
Look at the third image of that sighting showing the observers position, he was not under the bird but 70 yards away.
Thank you anonymous critic. The bird was indeed seen from the side, so he should have drawn an oblique view, not a full bottom view, and certainly not the full top view shown in his drawing. Even if he had clearly seen the top of the bird, which seems impossible given that it was well over his head, it would have been seen at an oblique angle from a substantial distance as you point out. Your useful critique only strengthens my argument that he couldn't possibly have seen the view depicted.
Post a Comment