The multimedia section of Mel White's National Geographic story is available here.
There are five video segments, which run one after another (they took a long time to load on my computer). Don't miss #5,"Ivory-bill or no?"--it contains Bobby Harrison's infamous 1/4 second (Sept '04) "Ivory-bill" video.
Watch for yourself as Bobby flaps the wings of stiff-winged models in front of a truly crappy video.
If you're employed by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology (or maybe Eagle Optics), I predict that your chest will swell with pride at your mere association with this fellow! (Warning: the previous sentence contains sarcasm.)
Again, Tim Barksdale's opinion of that video is available here.
You should also watch Nancy Tanner in segments 1 and 2. There is a very stark contrast between Nancy Tanner's reality and Harrison's fantasy.
Second Trump Administration Will Benefit Environment
45 minutes ago
Posts
10 comments:
I listened to about two minutes of Bogus Bobby rambling away like a nutcase before I terminated the session with extreme prejudice.
I realize that National Geographic jumped the shark many years ago, but broadcasting Bogus Bobby's garbage in a non-ironic fashion is beyond the pale.
Time to write a letter.
The's only four videos listed there now - has it been taken off the site?
"...has it been taken off the site?"
Nope. Although only four videos are listed, all five videos are still there.
If you click on #4 (Lured by Decoy), you should see #5 after #4 completes.
Thank Tom - its just about worth the wait just to see the models in action.
Its an interesting video although hard to judge on a small screen within a screen. However is there anything in there that identifies it as a woodpecker? I'll just about buy that it isn't a Pileated but it could be something else with white secondaries couldn't it?
"...but it could be something else with white secondaries couldn't it?"
I doubt it.
Remember, believer Tim Barksdale wrote this about Harrison's video: "...I am NOT impressed with the footage of Bobby's and feel that bird one is CLEARLY a PILEATED in hs footage and a heron flying through in the second shot. NEVER NEVER will this POOR quality and terribly focused footage be of any value and if he is continuing to suggest otherwise He is being dishonest and of little value to the rest of us who are working dilegently to really acquire something of value."
It is a pitty that this footage isn't presented more clearly (larger screen) because from what I see (or think I see), it is a black bird with a black tail and white secondaries, and that doesn't really fit anything else but a certain species we all know to be believed extinct... At least I find this video more interesting than Luneau's footage, and that's been analysed and presented much more thoroughly.
I also would be more than interested in learning why Tim Barksdale is convinced it is a Pleated but sadly he, too doesn't present his case in public.
Sad.
And last but not least, there's no discussion of any field marks here on this forum either, just the usual remarks from Amy Lester about what she had realized many years ago that no-one else has. We know that by now!
Where's the good old times when this blog went far beyond just linking the crowd from the comments section to something new to devour? Where has the constructive and instructive side of this blog gone?
Again, sad.
Sorry, but there's not much constructive to say at this point about the recycled "evidence" for IBWOs
I didn't see any field marks worth discussing when I viewed Bobby's sub-Luneau footage.
Well others do, e.g. they see a Pileated. So why not give some more details?
This comment is directed to the annonymous who posted below Tom:
I had the opportunity to view Harrison's footage up close and personal last year, and it is very clearly of a Pileated. In one frame before the black-and-white shape passes behind the tree trunk left of the decoy, one can see rather clearly the underwing pattern and the white patch at the base of the primaries shows through thanks to backlighting and it points only towards PIWO.
Booby (oops, I mean "Bobby") focuses on the blurred shape after it has passed that tree trunk, when all you can see is blurred black and white, but can't see what part of the bird is where. The second bird flying back at the bottom of the screen (probably not visible on the version of the video on the Nat Geo website, but visible in the original video) could be anything, maybe a heron, maybe a phoebe, maybe a fairy. In any event, Bobby is clearly trying to milk this crappy video for what he can, but it is WORTHLESS, and clearly does not show an Ivory-bill.
Sounds like even Cornell is trying to sever ties with Bobby since he is trying to make claims even they don't feel comfortable making (imagine that!) about his video "evidence." THAT's what's sad!
My two cents
If you or Bobby want others to comment in detail on his video, a high quality version with zoomed screen captures or slo-mo, not a distant screen within a screen view, needs to be made readily available via the internet. I suspect that Bobby does not want his video scrutinized in detail because 1) his ID won't hold up and 2) the video will lose its tantalizing mystique, reducing ticket sales for his appearances.
"Where's the good old times when this blog" ?
These are still good times for skeptics, just not so good for TBs.
Post a Comment