This was all over the news today (LA Times, Seattle Times...) (for some reason it was today, not a few weeks ago when it happened). I dug up the original news story, and low-and-behold, if the photo printed with the story is the actual photo, it isn't a Condor.The emailer later emphasized "I hope people are nice to the kid", and I agree.
I don't want people to pick on the little kid, but who the heck told him it was a Condor (it looks like a Great-horned, from what I can see). I think the slippery slope of the shoddy ID of the IBWO is contagious.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Another mis-ID?
Last week, an emailer wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Ah, another photo good enough to be deemed "inconclusive". GHO, as has been suggested? Crow? Raven? TV, BV?
IBWO?
If the bird is flying to the left (enlarge the image, look at the shape of the primaries), it has a small head. Not having the original image in hand, I wouldn't be so quick ridicule the ID.
This is getting kind of ridiculous. Pointing out mid-ids by obviously rank amateurs. What does that prove?
This story is about PHDs. People who we expect to know better. People who are supposedly educated to observe properly. And yet still make the biggest boneheaded mistakes of their carreer.
Well congrats to the kid for being that curious about nature and knowing that getting a photo is important. Very impressive for a 5-year-old.
And having the media not realize that the Condor id is highly unlikely is just about business as usual for them.
The real problem will come when someone from Berkeley or Stanford starts a major research project that uses the image to raise funds, get on NPR, etc. When the five-year-old's mother is selling books about the sighting and he is making money off of lectures and paraphernalia, then we know that the CLO/TNC virus has reached the West Coast.
Tyler Hicks, eat your heart out!!
A Condor in Topanga wouldn't be that weird to me in that there are a lot of the birds wandering around in that general area. In the Mt. Pinos area a number of birds regularly roosted on some poor guys deck and painted it white. Additionally, thirdy years ago, when there were only about 30 condors total, one hung out on the Stanford Campus for a week or so. I just wouldn't consider a sighting in Topanga in the least extraordinary.
Fishcrow wrote:
"10-31-06. I've been taking care of business back in D.C. but will soon be returning to the Pearl. I'm about halfway through Chuck Yeager's autobiography, which is a great read. This book got me to thinking about the qualities of some of the skeptics:
* Stupidity. Back when aviators were trying to break the "sound barrier," many believed that forces would become infinite at the speed of sound and that any aircraft that approached it would be torn apart. They ignored obvious evidence to the contrary. For example, meteors travel through the atmosphere at many times the speed of sound, and some of them make it all the way to the ground in one piece. We are now witnessing stupidity among skeptics who are ignoring evidence that the ivorybill is still with us.
* Apathy. Before breaking the sound barrier, Yeager's flights were ignored as this quote indicates: "There's no interest in our flights because practically nobody at Muroc gives us any chance for success. Those bastards think they have it all figured." The same thing is happening with the ivorybill. There is very little discussion on the birding listserves of states where ivorybills have been found. Birding magazines published stories shortly after the news came from Arkansas. Since then, they have largely been silent other than publishing the views of skeptics.
* Jealousy. Despite being one of the least senior test pilots, Yeager was chosen to make the attempt at the sound barrier in the X-1. The other test pilots were jealous, and many of them hoped he would die in the attempt. It is obvious that many of the ivorybill skeptics are motivated by jealousy. For exampe, they can't stand it that a birder like me, who doesn't play by their rules, has found ivorybills. Eat your hearts out, skeptics. I have found ivorybills in the Pearl, and you have no idea what you are missing or how clueless you are.
#########
I would counter with (re believers):
* Genetics. The "Believer Gene" must be inherited, as there is no other explanation for the consistent combination of exhibited traits including gullibility, arrogance, buffoonery, walleye-vision, and a complete lack of conservative objectivity.......
Interesting that Fishcrow should pick Yeager, especially citing that he was chosen to be the first to attempt mach 1. Most aviation afficianados know that he was, in fact, the second to actually do it. Ooops.
But Fishcrow is the first [in our generation] to consistently find IBWO's. I think I'll offer him $20K or so for a field trip ... payable upon my taking wonderful photos of a live IBWO.
Okay so given the above I now agree with the person who is constantly saying that fishcrow.com is a parody website. Drawing a parallel between a well-documented and successful attempt to break the sound barrier and a completely unmonitored and undocumented attempt to see an IBWO is the last straw.
Or this could explain Fishcrow’s problems with identification. If he sees himself as a latter day Chuck Yeager then it would only be a minor stretch for him to make a Pileated into an Ivory-bill.
The photo in the Topanga Messenger
article linked to by Tom looks
very good for a California Condor
and not at all like a GH Owl.
Okay so given the above I now agree with the person who is constantly saying that fishcrow.com is a parody website.
I knew it! People are finally coming around to my view. Yes, clearly a practical joke. How could it not be? Linking himself to Chuck Yeager!
Come on now. Where are the rest of you? Parody website, right?
This post on BirdForum seems to explain a lot about Collins. I know he has a reputation in VA, but this collection of some of his quotes are just plain nutty:
"The fact is that I am the best in the world in my line of research. The same drive that got me there is what has made me successful at finding ivorybills."
"I posted on the local listserves for a while but quickly outgrew them. It was ridiculous. You would find ordinary birds such as Sedge Wren or Alder Flycatcher and then start hearing that everyone was questioning it. My God, there was even a skeptic when I reported a Wood Thrush that was a few weeks late. Why would any serious birder want to participate on such a listserve?"
"Kaufmann's comments on this species, which he has never seen, are ignorant and naive."
"For what it's worth, my own estimate is that there are perhaps 40 birds in Louisiana. I'm basing this on the number of reports that seem credible, which have come from several locations. My estimate is 100 birds total, with Florida being the other stronghold along with Louisiana."
Sorry, Tom. I agree that it looks like a Condor. Check Sibley for a picture of the low downstroke. Condors now number in the triple digits out there - not exactly megararity status. Probably best to stay focused on Ivory-billeds.
A year ago, while the folks at BirdForum were busy making fools of themselves, Skeptics here were methodically dissecting Luneau. Today my Skeptic friends struggle in a battle of wits with a five-year-old. No wonder Geoff Hill sounds confident. Unlike the Luneau video, his audio is being dodged by Skeptics and remains resistant to debunking.
Hill has presented extensive audio that in order to be to be explained, so far as I can tell, requires asserting not less than two distinct, frequently repeated, non-typical, animal behaviors. Nothing presented on this site in the six weeks has advanced us toward a better understanding of what it is they have actually recorded. (BirdForum of course contributed the fawn bleat… for what that’s worth.)
pd
(just doin’ my job)
"Hill has presented extensive audio that in order to be to be explained, so far as I can tell, requires asserting not less than two distinct, frequently repeated, non-typical, animal behaviors."
......Huh?
Maybe we could start by going to the audio(s) that you are referring to. Can you give us dates and times of the ones you like?
Today my Skeptic friends struggle in a battle of wits with a five-year-old. No wonder Geoff Hill sounds confident.
????
I thought Geoff Hill was trying to prove to the world that IBWOs are scraping bark off trees alongside Florida roads.
Why would anything that we say here make him "sound confident", pd?
This blog could go belly-up tomorrow and the IBWO would remain precisely as extinct as it is today.
"Today my Skeptic friends struggle in a battle of wits with a five-year-old
Haven't seen anyone struggling here and certainly not battling a 5-yr-old.
Any bad image of a bird the media jumps on is bound to trigger bad memories for those who at first believed the CLO and then had to come to grips with the fact that not only was the IBWO still extinct, but a major ornithological institution had sold its soul.
Though I can't help but wish someone had gotten to Fishcrow when he was five years and provided some reality-training.
Enlarge the image. If it is flying to the right, it has a most unavian leading edge to the wing!
H-e-l-l-o! We're only looking at a low-res reproduction of the photo!
Practical Joke monger wrote:
"I knew it! People are finally coming around to my view. Yes, clearly a practical joke. How could it not be? Linking himself to Chuck Yeager!
Come on now. Where are the rest of you? Parody website, right?"
************
Wrong. Fishcrow is a legitimate wacko. Perhaps he's an idiot savant when it comes to mathematics, but he's just plain an idiot when it comes to IBWOs. Kind of reminds me of the guy on the History Channel UFO piece last night- his title was "UFO Lecturer and Nuclear Astrophysicist."
For what it's worth, I'll agree with Great Horned Owl moving to the right. And, I do hope that people are nice to the kid and maybe sit down with him and explain what's really in the photo. Maybe the kid will actually be receptive and objective about it, unlike the grown-up (at least physically) IBWO believers.
Wrong. Fishcrow is a legitimate wacko
Yeah, but fishcrow COULD still be a great practical joker. Right? I mean, yeah, you are right in what you say. But you left out the part where he is clearly a prankster of the first rank.
Right?
Okay so it is agreed that Fishcrow is a wacko and now the only issue is whether he is a self-aware wacko with a sick sense of humor or simply a wacko birder out of touch with reality.
For an answer you may want to look at his website and examine both his text and image in the entry for 9-30-06.
This armchair psychologist agrees that he is a true wacko, not self-aware. As evidence, the end of last year's "field season" when he stayed in his hotel room with a mysterious illness, after the prolonged period of psychotic, manic behavior.
Sounds to me like he was bipolar with a wee bit of schizophrenia - all unmedicated.
Anonymous said...
"Enlarge the image. If it is flying to the right, it has a most unavian leading edge to the wing!"
We are looking at either an owl or a Buteo flying to the right - most likely from the underside. That is, it's moving away from the observer. The leading edge of the left side wing looks correct (it's extended). Note the gap in the same wingtip. It's the space between two primaries and it is angled as it would be for a bird moving to the right.
The photo is pretty bad but I can make out suggestions of darker primary tips, "wrist" comma, a dark patagial mark and most telling - a reddish tail.
Many people are familiar with the more common species in their area but often fail to recognize them when seen up close or in a slightly unfamiliar context. I have witnessed even experienced observers befuddled when given a good view of species they otherwise know reasonably well.
The news media has a long history of making much from bad photos. Even our photo ID guides are laced with misidentified birds.
Excitement tends to blind us at times. And it's contagious!
MR
'Fishcrow' is not unique in being a scientist/mathematician whose bird identifications are disputed.
Before IBWO came along, one of the longest and best remembered threads in Birdforum's fairly short history was this one...
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=8930
And when you've finished reading that, get ready for the reprise...
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=23909
For an answer you may want to look at his website and examine both his text and image in the entry for 9-30-06.
But don't you see? You have fallen for the joke. The best practical joke in cryptozoology history.
Fishcrows website looks sick. But it's too sick. His claims are too outrageous not to be a practical joke.
Don't your see, now?
Www.fishcrow.com is a giant practical joke. And we Skeptics are the punch line. It's the only logical conclusion that quantum mechanics leaves us. A giant black hole of unbelievably complex humor and sickness.
It's a beautiful thing. We honor the fishman.
An anonymous emailer wrote:
---
If you want to continue the “condor” discussion feel free to post the attached image. It’s the kid’s photo from the online news story with brightness increased about 60% then zoomed in and resampled at about 4x. I think it’s pretty obvious here that the bird is a Red-tailed Hawk flying to the right.
---
Here is the attached image.
I think it’s pretty obvious here that the bird is a Red-tailed Hawk flying to the right.
I think it's weird that people bother with conjectures like this when the kid -- even if he's half blind -- can tell you whether the bird was flying to the right or left.
Call him up.
In other news: good riddance Dick Pombo.
I think the kid should be invited to teach at CLO, I can't tell what the heck it is.
Check out this post on the LA County listserv (this URL will be good only for a few days from Nov. 7)
http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/LACO.html#1162930639
Someone wrote a letter to the Los Angeles times about the misidentification. Unfortunately, he calls it an owl.
Post a Comment