Friday Funny: MAD SCIAM MAGAZINE
49 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update5 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
35 comments:
While I am encouraged by this:
" We will first present the image to identification/ivorybill experts throughout the North American ornithological community for opinions. "
I am discouraged by this emphasis on camo, and stealth and all the crap that seems lifted from BIRDFORUM. Talk to Campephilus experts from Central and South America and you will soon learn that all this camo and stealth is totally unnecessary. All it does is lift the bird into mythological status, a bird that hides behind trees and flees humans. Hell no wonder it's extinct....it spent all it's time fleeing man and never got around to breeding.
Sounds like a fair plan but where is the part about identifying an active cavity, climbing the tree, putting a micro camera down the cavity, recovering a feather / egg shell, analyzing it in Dr. Hill’s molecular laboratory and comparing the DNA sequence to those available at the national repository? Another blurry bird picture or a recording of random sounds in nature are never going to resolve this issue, one way or the other. You cannot argue that putting a micro camera in a cavity for one minute is significantly more disturbing that having an army of noisy humans “quietly” invading a nest area on a daily basis. I still do not understand why this has not been done already. Or maybe it has?
we encourage him or her to bring the image to us so we can authenticate it through the above process."
What a crock! There is no way that my team and I would ever submit our photos to Dr. Hill. Why should I? When my team gets the definitive photo, we will get all the credit.
I plan to take our photo to Sibley. If he says "yes", then I get the $1 million from first publication rights. I would never trust Hill's process not to leak the photo. And once it's out on the web, it's value plummets to zero.
(oh, and by the way, we will be the ones out in the Chockfullahooyee without camo)
You should feel sorry for Hillcrow. This is the last good year of his career. The desperation is clear from the sweat on his brow.
Think of it this way. Hillcrow is going into the deep dark swamps to salvage what's left. To slay his demons. But they are not in the swamp. They are in him.
(Hey, that was pretty good. Where's the poet? Could he set my thoughts in some pentamic verse?)
Hill's update could just as well have been posted on www.fishcrow.com and no one would have thought any more or less about it.
I have now come to the conclusion that Hillcrow is part of the practical joke. What do you folks think?
Am I right? Huh? Huh?
Well the thing that most rankles me is where Hill says: Most of the existing Pileated hole data is from the Northern or Western part of the Pileated's range. So what is he implying? The implication is that the massive Northern Pileated might produce holes as big as this.
You might find Pileated holes this big in the North but our Pileated's down here are so tiny,
these holes are IBWO's.
So you can't debunk him with any
hole evidence. If you're in the South and find a large hole, it's an IBWO sign. If you are in the North, it's one of those massive Northern Pileateds. He's trying too hard to make this hole evidence unassailable.
Paul in New Paltz
A few days ago I observed that Hill may sound confident these days in part because, unlike with the Luneau video and the “condor” photo, this blog has not been successful in providing alternate explanations for the Chocktawhatchee audio that do not rely on non-typical animal behaviors.
Amy seemed confused by my comment, apparently because of her devotion to the extinction dogma she shares with 4% of the Hayes respondents. Another commentator wondered specifically which of the audios I liked… well I can’t say that I like any one more than another.
I’m intrigued by the overall picture that the recordings paint when considered collectively and in context. This is what allows Hill to say in this post, “Last year, our sound files indicated that whatever was making double knocks and kent calls often returned to a spot for three or four consecutive days. This year, we’ll be waiting for the source of such sounds to return.”
Perhaps when it returns it will turn out to be a pileated with a stutter and a bicycle horn. Perhaps not. Either way it would make a nice photo.
pd
And a note to the Hill team… many of us want to believe there are birders as well as academics involved here. Birders make lists. Please as a part of your protocol document all birds and mammals encountered whether seen or heard. And please make special note of pileateds. We’d all feel better knowing that you had a comprehensive understanding of wildlife activity and particularly pileated activity in the search area.
Anonymous wrote...
"A few days ago I observed that Hill may sound confident these days in part because, unlike with the Luneau video and the “condor” photo, this blog has not been successful in providing alternate explanations for the Chocktawhatchee audio that do not rely on non-typical animal behaviors."
Where have you been? We've been all over the AOU list, and beyond, with alternatives! Geese, ducks, coots, moorhens, cranes, titmice, nuthatches, frogs, toads, deer
etc.etc. I have heard "kent-like" calls such as most of these in California, Ontario and Minnesota.
Of all the Chocktahootchee data, I am least impressed with the audio.
I am still mystified about the Arkansas audio, but most of the Florida stuff is a waste of time.
Ok, that' it. Pd is also part of the practical joke. He just has to be. No one would HONESTLY believe that Hillcrow's audio evidence is anything but laughable.
Pd is stupid and Methinks has the right idea. Just get up the trees and sample the holes.
On the other hand, if Hillcrow wants to maximize time in the field and maximize dollar contributions then he doing the job exactly the correct way.
“Where have you been? We've been all over the AOU list, and beyond, with alternatives! Geese, ducks, coots, moorhens, cranes, titmice, nuthatches, frogs, toads, deer etc.etc.”
Exactly.
This has been the consistent approach to the Hill audio “Could be lot’s a things! …’nuff said. Move on!” That wasn’t the approach with the ‘condor’ though. Ya’ll plugged and plugged away until it was locked in on a redtail hawk. Why not the same skeptic killer instinct for the Hill audio? What’s your top pick? Jay? Moorhen? “Woodland Sandhill”?
The problem is that none are a good fit for a majority of the files.
pd
How did Fitzcrow get so lucky as to have Hillcrow? This man is totally off the hook. Auburn is getting all the abuse.
Sometimes you just get lucky. Or was he smart and devious?
Pd, you are part of the practical joke. As part of the practical joke, you must act just like fishcrow. You pretend to never really understand logic and then just repeat yourself.
So, it would be pointless for me to point out that the audio is not one thing but all those things that we Skeptics identified and that you listed, moorhen, coot, cranes, deer, jays, nuthatches, etc.
Now for you to continue the practical joke, you should come back with "....there you go again. You Skeptics haven't debunked the audio. Clearly the audio is not explained by deer alone.....blah...blah...blah"
Ok, now see if you can do that.
Talk to Campephilus experts from Central and South America and you will soon learn that all this camo and stealth is totally unnecessary.
The South American birds allow themselves to be photographed in hopes that bird researchers will be lulled in a false sense of complacency.
The camo is critical!!!!! Unfortunately, the robust selection for increased IBWO intelligence in the past 100 years -- added to its formidable inate intelligence -- has provided the IBWO with human/technology detection abilities that are as advanced as any such abilities in the entire kingdom of animals.
That is why NASA is involved. They want to get their hands on the bird first, so they can study its brain and obtain information that can be used to develop stealth technology to study the equally elusive life forms they have evidence for on Mars.
You cannot argue that putting a micro camera in a cavity for one minute is significantly more disturbing that having an army of noisy humans “quietly” invading a nest area on a daily basis. I still do not understand why this has not been done already.
4th Amendment concerns.
“the audio is not one thing but all those things that we Skeptics identified and that you listed, moorhen, coot, cranes, deer, jays, nuthatches, etc.”
The toots occur in tight clusters. Over fifteen weeks, about a third of the toots occur during mornings of one week and about a third occur during afternoons of another. Why did the moorhen, coot, cranes, deer, jays, nuthatches, etc. all start tooting at the same time? I wish I’d been there to see it.
The vast majority of the toots are from the same animal. Anyone who has truly been paying attention knows this.
pd
I’m intrigued by the overall picture that the recordings paint when considered collectively and in context.
That's nice. But you never responded to the objections made here about the lack of controls in obtaining those recordings.
Remember? For example, what happens when you stick a bunch of kids in a computer lab for a summer with 10,000 hours of field audio and ask them to find matches to audio of a little girl saying "Satan is really Lord"?
I think you'll be shocked by what you find. I think we'll need to call some priests and clean up Florida, if you get my drift.
The point, pd, is that the methodology used by Hill et al. objectively STINKS and their data is not "evidence" for anything interesting. Whether anyone here "explains" all the data to your satisfaction is relevant only to understanding your pathetic gullibility and naivety when it comes to understanding the proven ability of human beings to delude themselves and others.
Pd did it! Just like I said he would. Pd is definitely in on the practical joke.
But what about Hillcrow? Practical joker or practically an idiot?
" We will first present the image to identification/ivorybill experts throughout the North American ornithological community for opinions. "
I've got an opinion for you Dr. Hillcrow. You need a mentor.
I just got another phone call from the same IBWO (at least, it sounded identical to me). There were a lot more double-knocks this time but the following message was repeated twice, very clearly: "We have seen Hill plans. Bring it on."
I'm afraid this does not bode well for Hill et al.
“But you never responded to the objections made here about the lack of controls in obtaining those recordings.”
It doesn’t matter whether the methodology was good or bad. A control would make no difference here. Wildlife behavior was recorded, plain and simple. Hill has taken it upon himself to identify the behavior…something no one contributing to this site is willing to do. Seventy similar recording files extracted from the mornings of one week are not random recording artifacts and are not products of student imagination.
pd
4th Amendment concerns.
Love it, Amy!! I didn’t realize until you said it that “not wanting to discourage gullible donors but generating actual data” also fell under the 4th. Must be the really fine print :)
pd
" Wildlife behavior was recorded, plain and simple. "
Nope. Sounds were recorded, plain and simple.
Are some of the sounds due to wild animals? Certainly.
All of them? Doubt it.
As for the sounds that "can't be explained," they are just as likely to be due to Bigfoot, ETs or poltergeists as they are to an extinct bird.
It's a pity that you refuse to admit that certain claims require more than a collection of "unexplained" fabricated garbage before they are taken seriously.
On the other hand, you are not alone and I suppose that the "hope" you hold in your heart makes some people think you are a more pleasant human than a cynic like me who can't resist looking behind the curtain.
It doesn’t matter whether the methodology was good or bad. A control would make no difference here.
Damn. This is parody. Okay, you got me.
The vast majority of the toots are from the same animal. Anyone who has truly been paying attention knows this.
Anyone with a life would not know this - and would also find the above statement one of the funnier ones to grace this blog.
Why did the moorhen, coot, cranes, deer, jays, nuthatches, etc. all start tooting at the same time?
The annual chili cookoff?
Damn. This is parody. Okay, you got me.
I told you so.
Fishcrow, Cybercrow, and Pdcrow. All master pranksters.
The annual chili cookoff?
Oh...now I get it! Too many beans! Man, I'm slow. You need to explain your jokes, Amy. I like'em but some of us are dim witted.
Hey, whoever said you don't need camo is full of it.
Chupicki over at BF said you need camo and extreme stealth. You also need to know wind patterns and funnel effects!
I go with what he says.
Afterall, he told us he is a legend.
As a newbie to this blog can I just ask which end of a dear does a bleat come out of?
Hey, whoever said you don't need camo is full of it.
I agree wholeheartedly with you bf bufflehead. Camo will be an essential part of Hillcrow's career from now on.
Regarding toots…
Sorry to make some of you giggle…maybe I overestimated the readership. I’ve been avoiding the term ‘kent’ because it’s somewhat loaded and frankly a poor phonetic for the panhandle audio. ‘Toot’ strikes me as a much better fit. ‘Toot’ was the phonetic Peterson used: “a single loud ‘toot’ made constantly while foraging”.
Historic phonetics are of course a little hard to know how to handle. Avoiding phonetics though, I would note that a number of observers found IBWO vocalizations to be evocative of slightly off, single notes from musical instruments. Horns and clarinets come up. I think we could call it a recorded historical fact that IBWO vocalization did call to mind musical instruments in the ears of listeners. I would suggest the panhandle notes are indeed evocative of slightly off musical notes. “Bicycle horn” is my best match. I can’t say that I find nuthatches, jays, deer bleats, etc to be evocative of musical notes.
Regarding fawn bleats…
I’ve explained here before why I find them to be a poor candidate for the majority of the ‘toots’.
pd
Seventy similar recording files extracted from the mornings of one week are not random recording artifacts and are not products of student imagination.
I just listened to about 100 of the sounds in fairly rapid succession. The audio evidence is weaker than I imagined and requires a huge amount of work on the part of the researchers.
First, it sounds virtually anything that is two raps is considered "consistent with historical descriptions of the sounds of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers." Few if any of these illustrate the power I'd expect from an IBWO. I particularly like the raps mixed with or followed with calls of Red-bellied.
I've heard woodpeckers make double-raps when feeding, sometimes doing it several times. These recordings sound like that, not like an echoing drum to attract a mate and drive of rivals.
I live with Pileateds audible from my house, and you can perceive the power in their drumming from a long distance just by the way it echoes. These raps just don't sound like they've got any "oomph".
Second, the "kent" calls aren't a coherent set to my ear. They vary wildly in length, tone, and inflection. One sounded doubled. Some rise at the end while others fall. These calls aren't even consistent with each other, much less IBWO. Basically, they have a LOT of work to whittle the set down to something consistent.
Finally, to understand how badly they match IBWO, review Louis Bevier's comments on this blog at this link.
Amy? Have you got Pd's $1000 escrowed. I'm a little worried about him. Since he is part of the practical joke, maybe he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
Audio evidence just isn't going to cut it, as continues to be demonstrated ad nauseum by these discussions. Indisputable hard visual evidence is the only solution for a toehold on IBWO existence. The ID of the Luneau video bird depends on the eye of the beholder and it's not even close to indisputable- most of the believers have been talked into it being an IBWO by those "many ornithologists" (n = 4 the four martyrs collectively known as RemFitzenHill-Berg] plus some peripherals). Put up or shut up.
Post a Comment