Here.
I'd think it would be extremely difficult to strike that box hard enough to attract an Ivory-bill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
“Why Do You Resist?”1 week ago
-
Tornadoes4 weeks ago
-
-
Hello world!9 months ago
-
-
-
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
7 comments:
Now I'm confused. I thouoght they were searching for those mutant IBWOs that had become virtually silent and seemingly unapproachable but now they're going to try and call in the same kind of birds Tanner witnessed that responded to people chopping wood?
"...before camo...."
Those two words just about tells the world "hey world, we are the dumbest stupidest people that ever went into the woods"
hey Don! Great to see hear from you here ... I've admired your musings on this over the years.
I want to discuss something with you and get your feedback ...
Do you think that we can find a Skeptic, and a True Believer to enter into a public "Long Bet" over this?
One of the things that has irked the hell out of me is that Fitzpatrick et. al., while supposedly pursuing science, early and often made this a "refferendum on hope". To be a skeptic you had to be a pessimist - and worse, almost "against" the "return of the bird".
It was impossible to be both an optimistic person and a realistic person - ie, to take the position that the best explaination for ivory billed observations without extra ordinary evidience of their accuracy, is that they are NOT ivory billed. That position is the "rational" and "scientific" position.
Take the whole debate for and against the video - the rational thing would be to say, "very hard to be certian that that is an ivory bill, might be pileated" - but the Cornell et. al. did a very UN-scientific thing and affixed must greater certianty to the evidence than was warrented.
Lastly Fitz has the balls to keep saying "well we've only looked in "25% of the habitat" ... lone male, wandering etc ... "
I think a long bet is in order - since it has a phianthropic basis, I think it would be nice to get a high profile skeptic and a high profile believer on record.
Interesting that you can hit something once to get a double-knock sound.
I agree with anonymous - why do you need to camouflage wood in a forest?
The instructions on the box reads:
"Stick your head inside the box,then thrash your head from side to side with as much force as possible to replicate the sound."
"Using this technique anyone can see IBWOs."
Even Tom.
Lastly Fitz has the balls to keep saying "well we've only looked in "25% of the habitat" ... lone male, wandering etc ... "
Isn't one of the AR reports supposed to be of a female bird because no red was seen on the crest? Does anybody remember the details?
It would take some serious brass ones to cite a sighting of a female bird and then cry "lone male".
It must be their way of thinking "outside the box".
Post a Comment