...The [Luneau] video, which was understandably less than perfect quality, shows what many believe is the Ivory-billed woodpecker, but some believe is a look-alike bird, the pileated woodpecker.
"That video has been analyzed extensively by a group here at Cornell," said Rohrbaugh. "We've published about it in the journal Science. We concluded at that time in our publication that the bird was indeed an Ivory-billed woodpecker, and we still maintain that it is an Ivory-billed woodpecker in that video, and that the other sightings that occurred in that same general area and around that time were indeed also Ivory-billed. So for us, in terms of the science, based around those pieces of evidence, that is irrefutable evidence."
But what may be irrefutable in Cornell's eyes is still very much open to debate from others...
Now, That’s the Bomb!
21 minutes ago
Posts
5 comments:
It's amazing how Fitzcrow surrounded himself with sycophants who couldn't tell him the truth.
This is why Science Magazine is really the key to this whole story. From jump street these guys shorted the peer review process and got this thing run as a kind of "scoop" by Science - it was all part of a "mark com" plan, not part of the deliberative process of science. Call the video what you want, but calling it "irrefutable" is the kind of talk a cult member uses to defend a nutty doctrine.
The peer review came after the paper and the peer review said that your paper must be edited to look a lot more like Hillcrow's paper ...
Don Kennedy must be living in terror of the press actually reporting how he handled Fitz's email and the peer review.
Did we ever find out the name of the book review editor over at Science/AAAS who handled the peer review process for Fitz's paper?
No one wants to discuss why this paper was given such special handling at Science and what impact this has had.
If Fitzcrow doesn't reign in his wise guys and stop using the first paper they published in Science Magazine as the last word on the video ... someone is going to break through and report on what really happened.
Kennedy comped Fitz a publication on faith and because he belived in the Talmudic significance of this "discovery" ...
John W. Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab, told the New York Times that Jackson's accusation about using the rediscovery for financial gain "hurts the most." "We've tried very hard not to oversell what we know," Fitzpatrick said.
it is just that it keeps getting harder to not oversell what you know.
Dear Fitzcrow, Rosencrow, Hillcrow, Fishcrow-
Your licenses to conduct "science" are hereby revoked. Turn in your IBWO badges, cameras, and microphones immediately.
It's amazing how deftly Rohrbaugh interchanged "some" and "many" before the word "believe."
This is never going to end, folks, any sooner than creationists are going to see the light of evolution.
We're just tilting at windmills here.
Post a Comment