Here.
In my humble opinion, Mennill's segment contains a lot of pure delusion. It runs about 10 minutes, beginning at about the 19:35 mark.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update11 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
19 comments:
It's Cold Fusion all over again. The evidence hasn't gotten any better over the week. Instead, it's an over reaction to the Skeptics. Skeptics actually make the believers more certain! Not the data. Not the evidence.
Dr. Hillcrow is self deluding to an ever greater extent as more Skeptics appear. This doesn't end well for Dr. Hillcrow.
Dr. Mennill says, "We think the bird could persist in a large population up and down this river system." He was quoted as saying that before, but here we have verifiable evidence in his own voice. Although their paper does not say that the recordings are definitive, Mennill leaves this impression by saying that his "students would pore through the sounds listening for the diagnostic sounds of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker." Last but not least, "we have evidence for 3 birds existing in Florida." I want to believe this, but only if it's true...
At least the florida searchers are not claiming their evidence as definitive proof... like CLO. They just claim they have "compelling evidence" that it exists...warranting more searching. What is wrong with this? I don't actually believe it yet myself...but I am hopeful. Would anyone agree? I won't believe until the definitive photo or video is released.
"They just claim they have "compelling evidence" that it exists...warranting more searching. What is wrong with this?"
Yes, but that's not what they are telling the public. They are all over the media saying they have proof. Why the birds are all up and down the river!
They are lying or they are stupid. Take your pick.
Here's a question, where did the double-knock that is the lead in for this segment come from? Was this one of the double-knockies recorded in Florida by Mennill, or a crew camcorder? It sounds a heck of a lot closer and cleaner than anything I've heard from their web site (not that I've listened to all the clips). I would be pretty enthusiastic myself if this is a Florida recording.
Did I miss this clip as part of their evidence? Please tell me it is not Cornell's fabricated clip or the double-knock of some other Campephilus woodpecker.
Note the lead in says "a scientist from southern Ontario has played a leading role in proving its existence".
Well, that makes two ornithology laboratories that do not follow the scientific method of inquiry. To those unschooled in these issues, I am sure he sounded appealingly upbeat, dauntless, and reasonable. Not admitting to any real problems with the supposed sitings and his extravagant conclusions, though he hoped for a photo someday to allay the pesky skeptics. No mention of how DNA evidence could play a role. I noticed how he admitted that he hedged ever so slightly in saying that he felt that the Ivory-bill was the only North American bird to ''consistently'' double knock --- which in scientific terms is a huge admission that his recordings do not rule out other avian sources for a double knock detected in the laboratory analysis of the recording. He spoke like someone who could never be convinced that his evidence was inadequate; in other words, not like a scientist.
Mennill leaves this impression by saying that his "students would pore through the sounds listening for the diagnostic sounds of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker."
This is not science. This is crap.
They just claim they have "compelling evidence" that it exists...warranting more searching. What is wrong with this?
It's a lie.
Some morons think that the TV psychic Jon Edward can talk to dead people.
Does that make Jon Edward's claims "compelling"?
Only if you're gullible and care less for facts and more for hype and collections of vapid anecdotes.
When a couple of "experts" claim that evidence is "compelling" but refuse to address in a reasonable and substantive way the bizarre gaps and contradictions in that evidence those claims are best ignored.
Sadly, so-called "ivory billed woodpecker researchers" are so far deep into Bigfoot territory that they make Bigfoot researchers appear credible. Maybe that is the point? Sasquatch has a wide range ...
"This is not science. This is crap."
Can you elaborate? How else is someone supposed to look for audio evidence of an ivory billed woodpecker?
Amy, you live in Bigfoot territory (northern California), don't you? Are you a frustrated former Bigfoot Believer? You keep bringing up this mythical creature, not that it has much of anything to do with a woodpecker that really truly lived for millenia in this country. Is Bigfoot another obsession, too? Do you frequent the Bigfoot blogs also? Have you considered starting up a Bigfoot Skeptic blog? By the way, what size are your feet?
Well, I'm certainly not an expert, but the comments from Hill and Mennill to me seem reasonable, with a clear bias towards the belief the birds truly have been seen and exist. Agreed, its not "proof", but I would say falls under the heading of "possible indications". This seems fair enough to me.
How long would I give them to come up with the "killer photo or video"? Personally my answer is THREE YEARS. With all the hype, and interest, and searching, if after three year no solid photo or video of a live Ivory-Bill exists as proof, the bird is as dead as the dodo. But I'm willing to give the searchers this amount of time. Besides, it truly is entertaining reading all the various threads and sites from believer and non-believer alike :))
Three years? Everyone needs to remember that there have been sightings in every decade since the 40s, and there still hasn't been a picture. So we gave the folks that sighted the birds in the 50s 50 years to get a photo, the folks that had birds in the 60s had 40 years, ....you get the idea.
Three years from the first Sparling or Bobby-n-Tim sightings?, from the Science paper?, or from now? By my reckoning their three years are nearly up.
Can you elaborate? How else is someone supposed to look for audio evidence of an ivory billed woodpecker?
You're asking me how to look for audio evidence of an extinct bird?
That's funny.
I can tell you how to MANUFACTURE audio evidence of an extinct bird. That's easy. You do exactly what Hill and Mennill did.
IBWO_Agnostic said...
Three years? Everyone needs to remember that there have been sightings in every decade since the 40s, and there still hasn't been a picture. So we gave the folks that sighted the birds in the 50s 50 years to get a photo, the folks that had birds in the 60s had 40 years, ....you get the idea.
True enough, however the Ivory-Bill has never been searched for with the intensity and effort that it will be searched for in the next three years. Also technology, whether that means satellite maps, the internet, vastly better cameras and video recorders, etc. is now much superior to any previous time.
So I say three years from now, lets say Dec. 31, 2009 just to round things off, if there is no clear photo or video that the vast majority of skeptics accept as a valid, living, Ivory-Bill, then for me, the bird is gone. But you have to admit, believer and skeptic alike will both miss the very entertaining reading if the bantering pro and con re the Ivory-Bill ever stops...
You're asking me how to look for audio evidence of an extinct bird?
That's funny.
I can tell you how to MANUFACTURE audio evidence of an extinct bird. That's easy. You do exactly what Hill and Mennill did.
But there is no proof that the IBWO is extinct other than the fact that there is not yet a conclusive photo, which, given the documented behaviour of the bird, is understandable. So it's kind of like you're making your own assumptions and ignoring every other possibility to further your own argument.
.. kind of like what you're accusing Mennill and Hill of doing.
To the one who wrote: "But there is no proof that the IBWO is extinct other than the fact that there is not yet a conclusive photo…" This is absurd. The same is true for Great Auk. Where is the conclusive photo to show they are not extinct, huh? Then, (cyberthrush) you go on to say, "which, given the documented behaviour of the bird, is understandable." Since no one has documented what they are seeing, you can't attribute the postulated ivory-bills always-fly-away-from-humans behavior to the species. Another absurd statement invalidated long ago by Allen, Kellogg, Tanner, and others. Ask yourself instead what evidence did Hill et al. provide that was based on any verified source. The answer is nothing.
You foster an over-reaction that a definitive photo is the one and only immediate goal. It is not. All we ask is for reports and observations to make sense. Give us reports that include repeated, multi-party observations by independent groups of experienced people watching a bird or birds for an extended period (1-5 minutes), and this all starts to make sense and become compelling. Then get the photo. The one and only immediate goal for the sake of the birds, if anyone thought they had found some, would have been to establish theri activity patterns so they could be protected. Hill et al. utterly failed to do, and so did Cornell by remaining closed-shop and concerned about copyrights.
But there is no proof that the IBWO is extinct other than the fact that there is not yet a conclusive photo, which, given the documented behaviour of the bird, is understandable.
Please provide your citations for this claim and, for your sake, they had better be independent and robust citations. Don't disappoint me.
it's kind of like you're making your own assumptions
I'm assuming nothing that I can't support by evidence in light of reason and experience. I assume the sun will not rise in the west tomorrow. Do you have a problem with that sort of assumption?
When the IBWO fails to appear in anyone's camera or video lens, I assume it's because the bird continues to remain extinct.
and ignoring every other possibility to further your own argument.
I am not ignoring anything. My "argument" is rock solid and does not require bogus excuse-making like the arguments concocted by IBWO fetishists.
In hindsight it was absurd for the CLO and the Florida group to claim that their closed shop and closed woods approach was for the good of the bird. It is clear their real motivation was not to be scooped. From both a scientific perspective and a conservation perspective they should have encouraged all responsible birders in their efforts to document the birds and not claimed ownership in advance of bird photos taken by other responsible parties on public property.
Their ARU data might have been compromised if numerous birders were allowed in the area throughout, but these data were clearly compromised in any case, and were not what was really needed anyway. Additional visual searchers with cameras should have been the priority throughout.
In general, they should have followed standard birding practice, which includes transparency, and not claimed ownership of the IBWOs prior to documenting them.
I hope this episode will be a cautionary tale for ornithologists who might seek to establish their scientific bona fides by abandoning the time-honored methods and ethics generally embraced by birders, including field ornithologists with PhDs, throughout the world and at all levels of expertise. CLO should have known that gratuitous technology and statistics and premature adoption the fixed-study-site approach of ecologists did not by itself lend credibility to their search for the IBWO.
Post a Comment