Some related articles are here, here, and here.
A Birder's World "Field of View" article is here. An excerpt:
A member of the Records Committee and Taxonomic Sub-Committee of the British Ornithologists' Union published a peer-reviewed paper today that calls into question a key piece of evidence regarding David Luneau's famous four-second video and supports David Sibley's critical interpretations published in March 2006.A USA Today article is here. An excerpt:
Collinson says he is disappointed by his finding. He still wants to believe that the ivory-billed woodpecker exists but says the evidence does not support that conclusion. "My guess is that we've missed the boat on the ivory-billed woodpecker and they're already gone."A related blog entry is here.
An excerpt from this Bootstrap Analysis post:
In general, I think it is a sign of integrity and upstanding character for a person to admit they are wrong about something. Nobody at Cornell even seems willing to admit they might be wrong. I'm saddened that I've lost some respect for them in that regard.An excerpt from this article (the bold font is mine):
John Fitzpatrick, a director of Cornell University's Laboratory of Ornithology, said that different formats of the footage result in "comparing apples to oranges." Fitzpatrick said Collinson's evidence about similarities in the birds' coloring, wing patterns and flight patterns are skewed as a result.A related BIRDCHAT thread is here.
Fitzpatrick remains "convinced that the Luneau video is inconsistent in every respect with pileated woodpecker."
"We have yet to see even a single video of pileated woodpecker that matches the (Arkansas) video. Show us one and I'll change my mind," he said. "Nobody can do it. "
A Stokes posting is here.
Posts
8 comments:
There's a few more listed on Birdforum:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=833649&postcount=10014
it is amazing, Fitzpatrick "calls" Collinson.
at this point he is "all in", having actually had the timerity to use the nolin video and wingbeat argument to STRENGTHEN his conviction (from no doubt, to double no doubt)
Then he says that it is too bad collinson doesn't "de interlace" ... ah ha!
I'm just curious tom, if you can tell me, and I know you have done the work on this one, if Fitzpatrick believes that a PIWO using a feeder in a yard, DOES flap at 8.6 during escape, but then throttles back, unlike the video he has of IBWO, how many flaps does he have left in the luneau video to make his argument of sustained flight with?
This is amazing, our most influential ornithologist argues that sibley doesn't understand how birds move their wings, and he is arguing that he has a video of an IBWO that flaps faster than any known PIWO because he has how many flaps on film??
Regarding the wingbeat frequency argument, I think that CLO has crossed the line separating foolishness from fraud.
Details are at #1 here , and also here .
A good time to read again Louis Bevier's post to ID Frontiers, when Martin Collinson first raised this last June.
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606b&L=birdwg01&T=0&P=1230
The radio interviewer asked "why haven't you gotten the photo yet that you are all trying so hard to get?" Mennill replied "that's the million dollar question". He added "We think there may be as few as 3 Ivory-billed woodpeckers in our study area that are extremely wary, and flee at the approach of humans". He mentioned there have been a number of sightings and a number of kent calls heard that they are convinced are made by the IBWO.
From 6-10 pairs, maybe more, to 3?
"Extremely wary and flee at the approach of humans?"
What excuse number is that?
"He mentioned there have been a number of sightings and a number of kent calls heard that they are convinced are made by the IBWO."
So there's the confession. They are convinced that the sounds are being made by Ivory-billeds. They have nothing to back that up (no matching sonograms, no visuals of a bird making that sound, etc.), but they are convinced.
Collison, like most of the ornithologist skeptics, further compounds the problem by lending some credence to the sightings, reaffirming that the IBWO may still be out there, and agreeing that it is thefore useful to continue searching for it.
Most professional ornithologists and birders have either lost all touch with reality or are too polite or afraid to state the facts clearly. Someone of stature in the world of ornithology needs to say what I've been saying from the start:
1. The IBWO has been extinct in the USA for a long time
2. It is pointless to search for it
3. None of the evidence, whether sight records, videos, or recordings, is or ever was credible
It is not enough to critique details of the bogus evidence and irrelevant analytical methods, conceding and retracting points here and there, and then concluding with gratuitous statements about how we all share hope that the IBWO may exist if we just look hard enough.
This entire episode has been an absurd and damaging distraction and needs to be condemned as such.
Seems there's a bit of (self?) censorship going on at the believers' forum (IBWO.net). The post on the Collinson/Mennill radio interview has now gone, as has a post by 'emupilot' questioning Collinson's paper. So, no debate, just facts?!
Fitzpatrick remains "convinced that the Luneau video is inconsistent in every respect with pileated woodpecker."
I thought even he used to admit that there were some frames that appeared more consistent with Pileated. Is he "upgrading" his opinion?
"We have yet to see even a single video of pileated woodpecker that matches the (Arkansas) video. Show us one and I'll change my mind," he said. "Nobody can do it.
Did he even read the Collinson paper? He appears to be pulling a Fishcrow. Remember when he said that nobody could produce a picture of a Pileated that looked like his bird? Well somebody did, and he try to say it wasn't in the exact same position so it didn't count. Unless somebody gets a video of a Pileated that matches the Luneau bird 100% frame by frame (a virtually impossible task), he won't budge.
Fitzpatrick has gone off the deep end. Science is dead at CLO.
Post a Comment