I hadn't visited the Arkansas Refuge Forums in a very long time, but a recent check showed that believers there are scarce to nonexistent.
Here's one thread from last summer.
These duck hunters understand that if you paddle ten minutes from the boat launch, you're not going to find yourself in a "remote" area. They also understand that a population of large, conspicuous woodpeckers cannot avoid photographers for 60+ years by hiding behind trees.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
You concentrate your points on mainly the Luneau video even though the body of evidence is much greater and consists of data sets from 3 or 4 states.
Regardless we will play in your sand box to see if you leave. I have never gotten a satisafactory answer on frames 33 and 50 I believe in the beginning of the video.
These are the two frames that show either a perched IBWO with white on folded right wing or show the ventral side of an open flying PIWO right wing.
In both frames 33 and 50 the white is in about the same position. The wing has barely moved.
HOW DOES A FLAPPING WING STAY IN THE SAME POSITION for 1/6 th of a second? These species flap at rates of ~ 5 to 9 times/s.
Also where is the substantial black if its the ventral side of a PIWO wing?
You can toggle back and forth on this tape by using the arrows and look at these frames a hundred times.
signed: need to be enlightened
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/1114103/DC1/1114103S1.mov
Please carefully check out the information and video here .
The wing IS moving, and the trailing black IS there. (Note that the fields aren't 1/6 second apart; they're more like 1/60 second apart.)
Tom have you quantified or even qualitatively looked at where the wing tip should be in the flap cycle of any alleged flying bird from frame to frame after a .015 s time lapse?
These two frames are .015 seconds apart. The outstretched wing tip is in the same relative position to the rest of the wing in the latter frame. Why is there no bending of the wing?
Since this individual bird flapped at about 8.7 cycles per second in .015 seconds the bird's wing tip should move down about 40 degrees if you represent a flap cycle by 360 deg.
Why has this wing and especially the wing tip not changed relative postion? The whole outstretched wing has just shifted to the right ~ about an inch and still appears fully extended.
How is this a flapping wing if it is not flapping but rather sliding to the right an inch? This species allegedly makes a complete wing cycle in .16 seconds. The wing tip has got to move in that time ~ 6 inches to be flying/flapping.
still not enlightened
>>>The wing IS moving, and the trailing black IS there. (Note that the fields aren't 1/6 second apart; they're more like 1/60 second apart.)<<<
11:13 AM, January 02, 2007
Dear still not enlightened,
Please very carefully read my analysis at point 7 here , then tell me your theory on how this bird could have its right wing nearly folded in Frame 0, yet nearly fully raised in Frame 7.
Tom
Tom I only see wings in frame 33 and 50 and would like to just get past these two frames and wing position. The other frames such as 0, 16.7 and 66.7 show only a part of a tail with alot of conjecture added in by both parties. I may not agree with either sides/parties in these other frames.
Its a pretty straight forward question involving just two frames......the question is not answered in #7 which you just referenced me to as having an answer. IT doesnt.
Why is the wing and wing tip in 50 only an inch to the right of where the entire wing and tip was in 33.3?
You say in 7 that we should expect 7 frames per flap. Then after one frame (33.3 to 50) we should have 1/7th a cycle or 360 degrees divided by 7 equalling some 50 degree of wing rotation yet we have none.
Why?
Can you answer or not?
tks
here is your 7
>> 7) I think the folded wing theory makes no sense. I think Jackson's "fully opened wing" theory is a much better fit. Under that theory, in response to the approaching canoe, the bird doesn't need to lunge violently right and left--it simply launches as normal, raising its wings and completing one wingbeat cycle in the normal 7 frames.<<<
The wing appears nearly fully extended in 33.3, and is somewhere on the downstroke by 50.0. I don't know exactly where the wingtip is in either field.
If you can't provide specific answers to these two questions, I'm now finished with this exchange:
1. Using my frame numbering system from point 7, how can this bird have its right wing nearly folded in Frame 0, yet nearly fully raised in Frame 7?
2. Do you or do you not see a trailing black edge in the video I referenced in the second comment of this thread?
Tom, ok I am looking at your analysis of these behind the tree, completely hidden frames that you have numbered 0 to 7. Each frame is .0166 s apart.
I actually find your point thought provoking in the light of Mike Collin's recent analysis of a take off sequence of the probable IBWO he videoed. He was wondering why flap rate was a bit ponderous and slow as the bird moved a short distance from a tree to another close tree.
I think his conclusions that an IBWO could have a slow flap rate in certain short spurts and takeoffs is more caused by the proximity of the intended landing tree than any behavioral constant that IBWO takes off with an extremely slow flap rate in every case. Still the fact remains that the species have very different lift ratios and interclavicle measurements. They are by no means aerodynamically equivalent.
I especially believe that the Luneau bird was in a hurry to get out of there whatever species it is.
Therefore I will not use this very slow rate during takeoff of the alleged IBWO to fit the timing of the birds return in frame 7.
The scenario seen in the video is closely explained with 0 (33.3) starting with a perched bird and 7 ending in the first time the birds wing was in the upward position.
It all goes as follows:
Frame 1 bird tilting to its left, as the feet are shuffled to slightly new postion also more angled to the left and more to the left.
Frame 2 bird is still close to trunk and no opening of wings at this point has occured, as with many species that could result in damage to bones and flight feathers. By the end of frame 2 the birds body has recoiled towards the trunk to power the upcoming spring off the trunk.
Frame 3 the bird springs to its left opening its left wing as the spring occurs while the right wing is still relatively very close to the body. Note that opening a wing that is ~14 incles long takes two frames but the opening does occur as much as physiological possible towards the upward wing postion.
Frame 4 The left wing has almost reached its distal postion but is not needed to be in upright position but is just increasing lift by being extended for resistance to air.
The right wing is extended almost 1/2 way to the distal postion.
Frame 5 Both wings almost reach their most distal position but have not pivoted up yet.
Frame 6 the wings are fully extended and then move towards the postion we see in frame 7 but not right there yet
Frame 7 half way through this frame the bird reached the postion seen in 7. I am therefore a half a frame off.
I see the black in the alleged wing of the PIWO.....if it is a PIWO the black is not shaped corrctly and if there is white bleed out as an artifact it has occured in a very uneven and unexplained manner as in severl feathers the tips of the primaries and secondaries are white partilliay fitting IBWO and just as much PIWO.
Also to get the black trailing edge of the wing to appear like that you have proposed a more severe angle with the wing surface being more parrallel to the kayakers line of sight. For the pileated to appear at that angle it must be distant from the trunk already.
Which again leads me to my question that you hopefully will answer after me asking for now the fourth time.
How does a trailing edge of the ventral side of a wing and and all of the visible wing in frames 0 and 1 ( 33.3 and 50) seems almost fixed in the .016 seconds elapsed? Isnt the time elapsed even longer since these frames may still be interlaced
How does a wing freeze along it trailing edge for a bird in mid air that is fleeing?
You have not explained this two frame sequence in relation to the readily viewable wing position or portion of wing position viewable.
If you can not explain .....the video is of an IBWO....I think this is why you keep avoiding answering this simple question.
good luck
Tom months ago said:
>>> Now we need to consider what the bird was doing behind the tree, between Frames 1 and 7. I would argue that according to Cornell's "folded wing" theory, the bird is now caught "between flaps". The Luneau bird takes about 7 frames per wingbeat. When we see the right wing held high in Frame 7, is that the first or second time that the wing was in that position? If it's the first, why did the wing open so slowly, and how could the bird possibly have lunged so powerfully? If it is the second, how did the Luneau bird complete a wingbeat cycle within about 3-4 frames? (Note that if the wing was just opening in Frame 1, it likely wouldn't be fully raised until Frame 3 or Frame 4, leaving it only 3-4 frames to complete one full wingbeat cycle by Frame 7).
By the way, David Sibley provides a sequence of 23 consecutive frames complete with interpretive sketches starting on page 8 of his supporting online materials here .
Cornell hasn't countered Sibley's sketches for a very simple reason--the Luneau bird is not an IBWO.
signed: need to be enlightened
Fishcrow? Is that you?
Anything in the tallows today??
If you can not explain .....the video is of an IBWO
This is just illogical. The existence of a species doesn't hang on anyone's ability to explain or not explain what is happening in a bad grainy video. Things don't exist or not exist in the natural world because humans can or cannot explain things. That's like saying if one can't explain how the face of Christ appeared on the tortilla then God must exist.
"How does a trailing edge of the ventral side of a wing and and all of the visible wing in frames 0 and 1 ( 33.3 and 50) seems almost fixed in the .016 seconds elapsed?"
The writer who asks this question describes a scenario that requires 5 frames for a wing to open. In every subsequent wingbeat the upstroke is only two frames in duration. This five frame opening is far, far, too slow.
As for a likely answer to the question...
I count beat two as six frames in duration, and I presume beat one is also six frames in duration. This puts frame (1) at the top of a two frame upstroke. (Or in this case, two frame wing opening... 0,1.) Because the downstroke has not begun, there is no forward movement. The body is mostly vertical and rotating slightly, but wings held very close to the body during the upstroke don't change much to the viewer who is seeing ventral surfaces of the bird.
In frames 0 and 1 the wings are moving directly away from the viewer while held close to the sides of the mostly stationary bird not yet in flight.
pd
If you can not explain .....the video is of an IBWO....I think this is why you keep avoiding answering this simple question.
This is a classic case where if you torture data long enough, it will say what you want. It is also a case where people have a static image in their heads of a bird and can't grasp how it could be different, like CLO's absurd statement that something like trailing 1/3 of the wing should always be black on flying Pileated.
Let's look at basics, not interpretations of what you think the bird MIGHT be doing at any given moment. First, review the Nolin Pileated videos. Make careful note of 3 things:
1) Shape of the wing tip.
2) Shape of the black at the wing tip.
3) Amount (or lack thereof) of black showing on the trailing edge.
Now go to Tom's page on Pileated Comparisons and note the following in Luneau examples 1, 3, and 4:
1) The believers talk about how different the shape of IBWO is from PIWO. If that's true, why does this bird show the broad paddle shaped wing tip perfectly illustrated in the Nolin videos.
2) The amount of black on the wing tip crosses ALL primaries, not just the outer 4-5. It even curves behind on the open wing. How could IBWO every show this?
3) The wing has a black trailing edge, period. It is not particularly broad, but review Nolin again and you will see it is totally consistent with flying Pileated.
And don't take the CLO tack by attempting to blow the black off as a video effect. White bleeds, not black. Of course, CLO conveniently calls upon bleeding to explain why there is no black in the center of the wing.
The Luneau bird is a normal Pileated. Wing tip shape, black on the primaries, and black on the trailing edge are all consistent with PIWO in multiple frames. To get IBWO, you must dismiss the most consistent and obvious field marks as "video effect".
In agreement are Sibley, Bevier, Kaufmann, and Howell. The finest field ID people in the U.S. have spoken. If you'd like, feel free to cite other top field people who see it the other way. And no, the CLO people are not top field people. They are birders. They don't write bird ID guides and they don't write cutting edge bird ID articles. Do any of them sit on records committees? Just to be sure, please cite the qualifications of anybody you quote to be an expert in field ID.
That's like saying if one can't explain how the face of Christ appeared on the tortilla then God must exist.
That is just a perfect analogy!
Hello all.
>>>The writer who asks this question describes a scenario that requires 5 frames for a wing to open. In every subsequent wingbeat the upstroke is only two frames in duration. This five frame opening is far, far, too slow.<<<
This is just not a simple wing cycle like you try an portray is analogous to subsequent cycles later in the video. I satisactorly explained a hypothesis for the 5 frames that the bird is almost entirely out of view and is therefore mainly conjecture by all observers and commentators of its exact takeoff point. I was forced into commenting on these frames and this is clearly shown upthread.
Why the list-owner insisted on me discussing frames that show no bird and will never elucidate anything will have to be asked of him.
My scenario of a bird taking 4 or 5 frames (.08 secs) from clinging to a tree, moving inches to its left and springing off that tree and then spreading its wings is a plausible solution to the position the bird appears in frame 7 to the right of the tree. This line of discussion, while intersting can not be used by any party to clarify much.
Again talk to the owner on why its so important or pivotal. No one knows and can ever know the millisecond the bird launched in the air. The time tolerance he needs to fulfill all his hypotheses for the bird to be be a flying PIWO in 0 and 1 have not been burned by my approach that is to say these frames 3, 4, and 5 are unknown.
Only the foolish on either side could hope that these are pivotal frames (later half of frame 2 , frame 3, 4, or 5). I would like to get to the more interesting posts on this thread so could we finally get a detailed answer from you on:
How a PIWO in flight hovers in mid air with its ventral underwing seen by the camera remaining almost stationary during these two frames (0, 1) 33.3/50?
Your entire answer was
>>>>>In frames 0 and 1 the wings are moving directly away from the viewer while held close to the sides of the mostly stationary bird not yet in flight. <<<<<
I believe in this ambiguous and poorly worded answer you are saying the birds wings are extended up and the bird is somehow hovering. By the way this is not keeping the wings "close to the sides" as you state.
Also how can both wings be moving towards the viewer? Shouldn't a flapping birds left wing the far wing be the only one moving away from the viewer while the near wing be flapping down and towards the viewer.
A Picidae does not hover like a hummer for 2 frames like this and then speed off to its left.
Can you or someone else elucidate ON ONLY these two frames, 01, 33.3/50 and I will certainly extend courtesies back and get to all serious discussions.
Tom also answered as follows:
>>>The wing appears nearly fully extended in 33.3, and is somewhere on the downstroke by 50.0. I don't know exactly where the wingtip is in either field.<<<<
I see no downstroke. Where do you see indications of a downstroke? The other prior answerer says nothing about a dowstroke either.
The area where white hit black on the alleged ventral wing are in about the same earthly position throughout the entire length of the trailing edge. The alleged wing has
stayed about the same horizontal line and the wing has moved ~ an inch to the right.
There is no bending....there is minimal movement....and no evidence of any cycle....
I will answer all the good observations as soon as more than a two sentence answer that agrees with the facts seen in those frames is presented. I have trouble with those two frames and may or may not be in agreement with some of your other points.
And sincerely want to look at it from beginning to end of tape. I agree that there frames that you have points on.
These are very early frames, 33.3 50, some of the clearest frames, and some here seem to be avoiding giving an answer.
Tks
Tks really wants us all to play his pathetic suckers' game:
A Picidae does not hover like a hummer for 2 frames like this and then speed off to its left.
Really? Prove it. Prove to a mathematical certainty that a grainy video of a pileated woodpecker taking off from a tree can NEVER show to 2 frames "like this."
That burden is YOURS, my friend. Not ours. Good luck with your efforts. You might want to start captively breading pileateds now in order to obtain a sufficient number of birds to reproduce the video as exactly as possible. Also, I assume you already have the same exact model of video camera that the Cornell researchers used. That will be important for you to establish your claim. Again: good luck.
Cutting to the chase: Tks is a question-begger who, for some odd reason, can not wrap his or her brain around the fact that the Luneau video, by itself, is "evidence" of nothing more than "black and white woodpeckers fly around in the swamp." Reasonable people understand that, absent any evidence to the contrary, a grainy video of a large black and white woodpecker flitting about in the distance is a pileated woodpecker. Reasonable people understand that because somewhat similar -- albeit even more impressive -- birds like the IBWO have not been seen alive for more than half a century.
This is why the Lunaue video shows nothing interesting except, in conjunction with the documented behavior of the CLO researchers and others, the Luneau video is further evidence that the IBWO "rediscovery" is a poorly executed scam perpetuated by egotistical, deluded, and/or careless scientists.
the bird's wing tip should move down about 40 degrees if you represent a flap cycle by 360 deg.
I can't think of any bird with a 360 degree flap cycle - except maybe a whirlybird.
the fact that the Luneau video, by itself, is "evidence" of nothing more than "black and white woodpeckers fly around in the swamp.
I'm "Anonymous 9:45 AM, January 03, 2007". I have to disagree with you, Amy. The bird in the video is a Pileated. Hands down. No doubt. Done, over, toast.
To the person who posted about probabilities of evidence in some past thread, calculate this. What is the probability that the bird in the video is identifiable as IBWO if all of the best field birders in North America either say it's a PIWO, unidentifiable, or haven't gone on public record as saying it's an IBWO? Wouldn't you expect at least one top field birder to support the ID of IBWO?
The bird in the video is a Pileated. Hands down. No doubt. Done, over, toast.
There is no compelling reason to question this conclusion, so: call me convinced.
I actually saw the two subject frames....0 and 1 in Luneau. I think the numbering of frames is from TNs frame numbering system when he did his analysis awhile ago.
Actually the bird does seem to be just hanging there with little to no movement. I wouldn't call it a hover. Shouldn't it be dropping to the earth if it just floated there like that?
It is a bit unusual. I'll pass for now and think about it.
"It is a bit unusual."
I think it's completely ordinary. Again, please check out the sketches in Sibley's supporting online materials, starting on page 8.
In Frame 0, I think the bird is still lifting its wing to fly (it may lift it a bit further between Frames 0 and 1.) In Frame 1, the bird is taking flight, with the wing on the downstroke (as far as I know, its toes may still be touching the tree).
It is a bit unusual.
And how many hours have you logged analyzing similarly grainy video of birds taking flight?
You must have logged quite a bit in order to claim that the recorded observations are "a bit unusual."
Is a bark pattern on a tree trunk that sort of looks like a dude with a beard also "a bit unusual" in your opinion?
Or is more like something that isn't worth mentioning unless one has some ulterior motive for doing so?
Sibleys co-authors Bevier and Patten I am familiar with. They have alot of southern California experience and have done some good field work.............nothing mind blowing when it comes to potential top experience with Pileated's. Now Nuttall's maybe but this particular problem and article I must admit Sibley could have done better.
That is if everyone as you say is falling over with an absolute call of that tape being Pileated.
In some frames I see PW amd some IB but in the great majority of flight shots its tough. This perched bird versus flying bird being relatively close and decent frames.... should give the clue.
But please can we work it out ourselves...do we need to call out authors and compare resumes....this is silly and started by someone on my side by the way.
Keep to the facts if they are as strong as we think they are for PW.
In some frames I see PW amd some IB
In some frames I see man in furry suit, in some I see Sasquatch
"as far as I know, its toes may still be touching the tree"
This is a very good point. Just because the wing is extended doesn't mean the bird is flying yet.
I looked at page 8 of the Sibley SOP and still see that in every frame except frames 33.3 and 50 (O, 1) the tip of the wing changes its relative position about 40 degrees.
Frame -1 to 0 ~ 50 deg
Frame 0 to 1 ~ 0 deg
Frame 1 to 2 ~40 deg
Frame 2 to 3 ~40 deg
Frame 3 to 4 ~40 deg
Frame 4 to 5 ~40 deg
Frame 5 to 6 ~40 deg
Frame 6 to 7 ~40 deg
Indeed this repeats throughout the rest of the clip.
Again frame 0 to 1 is the odd frame. There is some reason the bird stops in that position...either a need to do something else. Sibley has the body dropping a bit but the wings just sit there. Tom says there is a downstroke starting but with the body dropping Sibley and the actual tape still show the wings at the same height from the earth even though the body has dropped.
Many of the images later in the film seem to be either PIWO, a lesser amount IBWO and most a toss up when looking at the Sibley paper. But when you look at CLOs selected frames they of course come out looking like mainly IBWO.
Then we go to frequency of flaps....hmm. I don't think Sibley estimated wing span and Cornell did right? Came out IBWO on that I am sure.
Let's say a hypothetical bird was raising its wing to take off from a tree, and one frame showed the wing at "20 degrees" from the vertical. Then, 1/60 of a second later, after raising its wing to a completely vertical position, the next frame catches the wing on the downstroke with the wing back at "20 degrees" from vertical.
Under your measuring system, would that count as 0 degrees of movement or 40 degrees of movement?
Then we go to frequency of flaps....hmm. I don't think Sibley estimated wing span and Cornell did right? Came out IBWO on that I am sure.
Since when has "flap frequency" been a reliable indicator of whether a woodpecker taking off from a tree is an IBWO or a pileated?
Seriously. Show me the publication which clearly established such data as an informative distinguishing feature between these two bird species prior to the 2005 Science paper.
Either that, or admit the obvious.
The attempts at precise measurement of the bird in the video are patently absurd given the poor quality of the video and stills and the CLO's fundamental misinterpretation of the flying bird. How can we measure wingspan when the basic posture of the bird cannot be established with certainty (to be charitable to the CLO) or was completely misinterpreted (the less charitable but likely correct interpretation).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the CLO "measure" features of the bird such as the tail of the supposedly perched bird that were not clearly visible, if at all, in the actual video or stills?
And didn't they fail to distinguish dorsal from ventral surfaces of the PIWO wings after studying the video for countless hours?
If they wanted the informed public to believe their measurements they should have kept their highly ambiguous source video secret and not exposed it to public review and ridicule. To do faith-based ornithology properly, one should not lift the veil of secrecy too soon, too high, or too often.
>>>Since when has "flap frequency" been a reliable indicator of whether a woodpecker taking off from a tree is an IBWO or a pileated?<<<<
Now concetrate a bit. >> Then we go to frequency of flaps....hmm. I don't think Sibley estimated wing span and Cornell did right? Came out IBWO on that I am sure.<<<
there were 2 different charactersistic of IBWO being discussed there. Wing span was estimated by CLO and they said IBWO. Sibley explained well that there are alot of hazards in attemting any estimate...he passed.
Flap rate I mention for the entire tape not for just a take off analyis...get it. That came out at ~ 8.7 hz over ~ 28 flap cycles. I personnally have never seen this in any field questimate of anyone or much more importantly in any measured tape sequence of a PIWO of equal time duration to the Luneau film (n = ~45).
I have seen IBWO tapes, very small N , showing hz similar to Luneau. The literature of some of the best indicate/infer that IBWO had a higher hz than PIWO. Literature also infers that in most cases IBWO will have a flight pattern similar to Lun while PIWO will not. I hope i have used small enough words.
Sibley mainly passed on the hz issue and I believe he had time to include a rebuttal analysis in his paper but chose not to. Hmmmm.
As usual no answer here on why frame 0 to 1 is such an outlyer frame....please, please do not bother. I need a fair, fresh, intelligent and completley unbiased
opinion. You are entrenched or should be buried in one or are.
only kidding, best of luck
1. How can you see 28 flap cycles in the Luneau video when even Fitz only sees 11?
2. Where, exactly, did you see these tapes of IBWOs in flight at 8.7 flaps/second?
Stand corrected and so do you....its 10 cycles. Doesn't change my point about frame 0 to 1 being an outlyer, now does it? The wing somehow is not moving for a bird that we all agree wants to flee and fast.....as it eventually does in all frames except...frames 0 to 1.
On the video of IBWO it is actually an audio from which the hz frequency of ~8.4 is heard.......see this link below.
This is mirror data; still indicative of the hz of flying IBWO and any comprehensive author must still convincingly refute it ALONG with ALL the eyewitness descriptions ( n = > 1,000 bird observed) that indicated to many now deceased top researchers and observers that the bird flapped at a higher hz than PIWO.
Amazingly very little about this in the "Comments on IBWO" paper.
Are you going to refute the likes of Tanner, Audubon, Allen, Wilson, etc. who saw IBWO and commented on the quick wing beat....or is a Loon or Pintails in the annals of literature described as flys like a vulture? None of the null hypothecators saw an IBWO in there lives...not once.
How much time did these mainly CA author/birders after Sib, even spend in IBWO habitat over the years? seems they would be adequate for a Nuttalls - Ladderback study. Certainly no heavy weights in the
Dryo. p. p. or IBWO taxa. Do they have any prior articles on either of these species? One didn't even put it in the field guide. A call to Remsen another replanted CAite was in order on Kulivan. A pair no less...no call, no interest, but suddenly then alot. By the way Remsen, a CLO author, has forgotten more about IBWO than all the null authors will have heard once. Lammertink another sloutch in Picidaelland .
You must also produce a PIWO tape that is of the length and duration with no undulations and of the hz of the bird in the Luneau tape.
Until then the hz seems to indicate an IBWO, the flight pattern indicates an IBWO, and you must explain the pivotal frames 0 to 1..........which do not fit the PIWO sequence in the respect that the bird is frozen in space and time.....and therefore may indeed not be of the ventral side of a PIWO.
Its been years now where is the link to both?
Need:
1) a PIWO in flight of 10 cycles or more at ~ 8.7 hz
2) the frozen in space for two frames, a measely .032 s, take off sequence of a PIWO.
Should be a snap... after all you guys say even if there was one IBWO we should have a great pic or video by now........well there is tens of thousands of PIWO...so where are these massive jpegs totalling
about 4 seconds ?
Well dippity doo.... I had hundreds of Pileateds in 2006 myself...there is allegedly tens of thousnads of observers according to you that agree that the Luneau is a PIWO. Get them in here.
N = 10,000.....those trying to get a PIWO tape like Luneau
please....I am busy and so are you...if you have nothing on these points say so.
Certainly I was called here to discuss more than foot lockers and phone calls. We can all handle the truth.
good luck
ps as usual this blog is bogged down in the small world of microchips ...aptly prefixed, on the keyboard, while the real people are out there having a grand time actually contributing to at least bottomland conservation
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/evidence/segments/frequency
The literature of some of the best indicate/infer that IBWO had a higher hz than PIWO. Literature also infers that in most cases IBWO will have a flight pattern similar to Lun while PIWO will not.
Answer Tom's questions and then provide us with the citations and specific passages in the literatures "of some of the best" to which you refer.
The size of your words is not the issue. It's the vapidity of your strange claims that is the issue.
Just a few points...
1. Fitz says 11 wingbeats at this link , rather than 28 or 10.
2. Please answer my "40 degrees or zero degrees" question above.
3. If you were talking about one (singular) audio tape of an Ivory-bill (which may be fluttering around its nest hole, rather than flying away), why did you write "I have seen IBWO tapes" (plural)?
4. Specifically who are these "many now deceased top researchers and observers" who allegedly indicated that the IBWO flapped at a higher frequency than the PIWO, and specifically what did they say?
I think I've been pretty fair in giving you space to vent here. If you want to keep commenting here, please make a good-faith attempt to answer my questions above.
One more thing, Mr Anonymous. Please specifically address just the first two issues I raised here .
One issue is the claim that the Luneau bird flies with a wingbeat frequency of 8.6 Hz for 4+ seconds; the second issue involves a right-leaning tree becoming a left-leaning tree in a critical portion of their response to Sibley.
When I've raised these specific issues with strong believers in the past, they've immmediately gone silent. Why is that?
ps as usual this blog is bogged down in the small world of microchips ...aptly prefixed, on the keyboard, while the real people are out there having a grand time actually contributing to at least bottomland conservation
Please learn to separate the very laudable work of conservation from the significantly less noble practice of claiming a definitive using poor evidence. Trying to save bottomland does not immunize one from having their judgement critiqued, particularly when some of us feel that this poor judgement potentially harms the credibility of other future conservation causes.
Continuing to search for IBWOs is not harmful. Claiming that every little piece of bad data adds up to definite proof that the bird exists can be harmful. The 2 activities are not the same.
Post a Comment