Again, this whole hysteria is far more about psychology than ornithology.
Yesterday, Cyberthrush briefly pointed to this story under the headline "A Very Merry Christmas From Jim Stephenson", along with this text:
I assume this is legit (...if it isn't, killing a feral cat will be the least of Jim's crimes) --- master birder Jim Stevenson of Texas weaves an interesting, previously-untold tale of Ivory-bill discovery here...That post has now been replaced with this one:
Since too many elements of the Jim Stevenson article seem non-credible I'm deleting it unless or until there is further validation for it. If you didn't read it don't worry about it; if you did consider it entertainment for now.
Posts
7 comments:
My comments on some the "facts" in this IBWO account can be found at...
http://tinyurl.com/yd7e5s
Later...
Before rushing to suggest that Stevenson's account was a fabrication and embarrassing yourself with such a pompous demonstration of a superiority complex, Olivacea should have taken 5 seconds to inform him/herself better. Googling "Hurricane Kate" immediately shows that it was a 1985 storm (i.e., 1986 was a typo in the newsletter).
too many elements of the Jim Stevenson article seem non-credible
In this statement Cyberthrush provides an example of how the IBWO myth can be maintained by nuances in adjectives. “Non-credible” is accepted as meaning lacking credence while “incredible” can mean both “too extraordinary and improbable to be believed” and also “amazing”.
If a weekend birder were to tell his local museum curator that he/she saw an IBWO, the most tactful response might be “That’s just incredible!” The birder could walk away from the conversation thinking they had made an “amazing” observation while the curator would be thinking the observation was too improbable to be believed and indeed would be better labeled as “non-credible”.
And it is worth noting that Fitzcrow went from being famous (spring 2005 announcement) to infamous (late 2006 rationalizations) on the basis of the pubic realizing that the purported “incredible” findings were really “non-credible.”
The Skeptic blog committee for _crow nomenclature hereby accords Mr. Stevenson the nickname JimCrow. Although not following the traditional pattern of naming, the committee notes that this is, after all, about making sure that black and white patterns are segregated in the desired way in the South.
One has to be of a certain age and experience to be aware that the originator of this tale allegedly engaged in (and confessed to) ornithological hoaxery as a young man. Some thought that he had grown out of it, but perhaps not...
BTW, the URL of the original "story" is
http://web.mac.com/rmcpeak/iWeb/Site/Gulls%20n%20Herons_files/Gulls%20n%20Herons%20Winter%2006%20-%20WEB%20.pdf
Enjoy!
I would like to point out that Jim Stevenson promotes himself in the newsletter as,
Publisher/Writer/Photographer/ Editor/Comedian
Please take note of that last one.
Great! We have hard evidence of the bird's existence in the 80s! So which museum has the feathers so they can be accessed for independent scientific verification? Anybody? Hello? Is this thing on? Oh, that's right. He is "reticent to identify the museum which houses the feathers."
Sorry, but science requires evidence that can be independently verified. Until that point, this is an anecdote, not scientific evidence. I look forward (without holding my breath) to the day when it's no longer just a story.
And to anonymous 5:32 PM, December 22, 2006 in these comments, don't make statements like "The feathers were then sent to a reputable establishment and were declared to be IBWO feathers" unless you can back them up with information like which "reputable establishment" it was and exactly who "declared" they were IBWO feathers. It makes you look very much like part of the tin foil hat crowd.
Post a Comment