Saturday
1 hour ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update2 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
17 comments:
What can I say?
I'm speechless!
Having canoed in the Congaree as recent as January 15th I can atest to the fact that the Congaree is currently flooded. Whether there are Ivory Bills there I seriuosly doubt it. Me and my canoeing buddy didn't see any IBWO so the score is -2 to 1. There is a photo of Jim Tanner circa 1970 in the lobby looking at the stump of a large cyprus that was cut down in the swamp. I guess that's enough evidence for a believer.
I do encourage folks in the South Carolina area to check out this national park it's pretty neat, especially if you have the oppurtunity to canoe.
Dennis
Augusta, Ga
I am pretty skeptical about the continued existence of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, but I am surprised at the intensity of this blog and those who seem to have staked out such a vehement position against the poor extinct birds. What is driving all of this? Why do you care so much? Can somebody please answer....
Darn...I guess we've been wrong. They do live. Oh well.
I am surprised at the intensity of this blog and those who seem to have staked out such a vehement position against the poor deluded folks who insist on peddling the myth of the IBWO's continued existence.
Fixed your typo.
"..vehement position against the poor extinct birds"
This is sure setting up a straw man. If one actually loves the resource and what used to be the science, before CLO and the journal of the same name degraded that word, one has to be upset at how the principals have used the poor extinct species for their own institutional and personal gain.
And until NPR, Science, TNC, FWS and others start running a correction on the "conservation story of the century" there is a real need to point out that that there is a difference between photographic proof and recordings of things that go bump in the night.
I'm used to seeing Science degraded. What upsets me more has been seeing birding degraded by famous ornithologists.
Has the Mobile Search Team been
notified yet?
I don't think we've done enough to help people realize that just because someone has a degree in ornithology, that they are able to identify birds in the field. There are plenty of ornithologists that couldn't ID themselves out of a wet paper bag. Others are unable to objectively evaluate the sightings of kayakers, magazine editors, and overly-confident-yet-unable-to-produce-the-shot bird photographers.
There are plenty of ornithologists that couldn't ID themselves out of a wet paper bag.
This is why the opinions of people like Sibley, Bevier, Kaufmann, and Howell carry so much weight. They are some of the country's foremost experts in bird identification.
Laying out transects, matching recorded sounds, determining habitat requirements, determining distribution, etc. are what ornithologists are trained to do.
Ornithology and field ID are two very different paths. There are those who are experts at both, but one doesn't infer the other.
I don't think I need Mr. Sibley to tell me if I saw an IBWO or not.
Any person that needs his personal assistance in identifying "that" bird should find a new hobby and/or see an optometrist.
As for his evaluation of the Luneau video he has the birds' identification right but its orientation all wrong.
View the video on an IBM T221 or similar ultra high definition monitor.
"There are plenty of ornithologists that couldn't ID themselves out of a wet paper bag"
...but Fitzcrow and Rosencrow were leaders of the World Series of Birding-winning Hall of Fame Cornell Sapsuckers team. They reported finding 229 species in one day in New Jersey in 2006 yet can't identify a Pileated Woodpecker! There is no excuse for their abandonment of birding standards and practices and endorsement of mysticism and technocratic pseudo-ornithology.
For those who are still wondering why we skeptics are so upset, please refer again to the original press conference with Gale Norton, aka James Watt in a skirt.
View the video on an IBM T221 or similar ultra high definition monitor.
Actually, any monitor capable of displaying six or more pixels may be sufficient.
Amy, how's your bet coming along? If the IBWO is found, does that mean your funding will totally dry up?
They reported finding 229 species in one day in New Jersey in 2006 yet can't identify a Pileated Woodpecker!
Neither Fitz nor Rosey have seen the IBWO. They messed up in trusting the reports of their underlings, and in carelessly stringing the Luneau video. They jumped the gun--sad but understandable. But won't come clean on it--understandable but unforgiveable.
View the video on an IBM T221 or similar ultra high definition monitor.
LOL! I bet it looks even more convincing in iMax, viewed through a pair of $1000 binoculars.
Tom jests about the monitor, but the approximate resolution of Luneau's Canon GL2 is/was 720 x 480 and only 640 x 480 when shown in the correct aspect ratio on a monitor with square pixels. Cornell's zoom on Luneau's fleeing woodpecker resulted in interpolated pixels that may very well mislead someone viewing the video on a high-definition monitor. Interpolation artifacts can be turned into miniature woodpeckers if someone really wants to see them. And someone may see different orientations than what Sibley and others have offered up for scientific scrutiny. I'm looking forward to 2050 when monitors will let me identify bird lice in current-day aerial photography.
Post a Comment