In the comment section, David L. Martin (fangsheath) sounds a lot like a believer:
I can assure you that resolution will come. There are those of us who have never depended on big money to find rare species and we will find and document these birds.Last May, he wrote:
The lack of clear images of ivory-bills does in fact concern me. Many of the incongruities between these extant ivory-bills and historical accounts concern me. I do not dismiss any of these things, nor am I a "believer," as some have tried to label me. Similarly, I neither ignore nor dismiss the sightings, acoustic data, foraging sign data, and video evidence. Ignoring and dismissing is not skepticism. Nor is contorting and distorting evidence almost beyond recognition so that it will fit your hypothesis. I consider myself a genuine skeptic, not a "Skeptic."
Posts
23 comments:
Yep, box turtles taught Martin never to give up on those UFOs, or Bigfeet. Or is it Bigfoots?
No matter. Martin is on the it's trail. A good man, that Martin, we're lucky to have him.
More sloppy thinking from Cyberthrush:
"...all for lack of a clearcut photograph in the post-2000 period"
actually the post-1940s period
The TBs don't think we're going to give them a free pass on the first five of their six decades of failure, do they?
The TBs don't think we're going to give them a free pass on the first five of their six decades of failure, do they?
Don't you know that during that time, nobody ever looked for IBWO or ever followed up on any reports. Ever. Not once. Every birder of that era refused to look because they already knew the IBWO was extinct. It was never found due to willful ignorance and staunch refusal to look. And it was all that narrow minded thinking that may have doomed the bird.
There, isn't that clear?
Oh, and this is to head off any TB out there who wants to bring up the 1970s pics. Here's a hint. If you show up with a purported pic of a live IBWO, but won't say where it was taken or who the photographer was, don't expect to be taken seriously. "Trust me" doesn't cut it in science.
The Cyberthrush is sounding sadder and sadder. Reality has a rude way of edging it's way into a man's mind and rooting out the butterflies.
Meanwhile, Bill Pulliam is beside himself about why people don't believe his analysis of the Luneau Video.
Is there anyone other than Bobby and Bill that still believe the Lunneau video is an IBWO?
This is how nuts the believers are.
Interesting how some box turtles are much more cautious than others, varying by more than an order of magnitude--but Ivory-bills never were.
Anonymous said...
"Meanwhile, Bill Pulliam is beside himself about why people don't believe his analysis of the Luneau Video.
Is there anyone other than Bobby and Bill that still believe the Lunneau video is an IBWO?"
I don't care much for where Bobby (Harrison's?) head is at on this whole thing, but I'm of the opinion that Bill Pulliam is right on with respect to how Sibley et al. have screwed the pooch by clearly interpreting artifacts consistently as plumage and Collinson doing the same but going farther in not de-interlacing the Nolin videos in his analysis (which I am pretty sure the folks at Cornell will base their slicing and dicing of that paper into tiny pieces of film on the floor in their retort). Nevertheless, give Pulliam some credit, he correctly doesn't give Fitzpatrick et al. a free pass on their interpretations either. Just because Sibley et al. and Collinson have blown it, doesn’t mean that Fitpatrick et al. are correct by default.
Both groups have overinterpreted the available evidence (which wouldn't take much given the few pixels available). The big difference is that Sibley et al. just made things up literally out of thin air as they went. With Fitzpatrick et al. on the other hand, at least we can see what they are talking about as mostly real plumage on a real bird, but we can and should disagree with their intepretation where we can. Just as Jackson proclaimed that Cornell was practicing faith-based ornithology to the unwashed masses, now it appears some of Cornell’s most famous critics are subject to the same problem with their fan-base doing the same thing proclaiming that there is no way Sibley et al. could be wrong.
So what's good for the goose is good for the gander on this one. I don't have any problem with Pulliams's following statement (but I assume others including Sibley et al. might take exception to this):
"The conclusions of Sibley, Bevier, Collinson, etc. about this matter have been based entirely on misinterpreted and selectively interpreted image artifacts, and should be disregarded. Sibley was quoted as saying that Collinson had demonstrated just how Ivorybill-like a bad video of a Pileated can appear; in fact what they have both demonstrated is just how bad experienced birders can be at interpretation of bad video."
Now it's up to someone to counter what Pulliam has convincingly demonstrated. Where ever Sibley et al. drew black around the wings we can see in Pulliam’s treatment that what was drawn is background shadow or otherwise a video artifact. While Cornell stated this in their response, Pulliam demonstrates it clearly in his frame-by-frame treatment. Pulliam dispels the myth that really great birders and great bird artists are infallible (perhaps they are actually better described as incompetent when it comes to interpreting bad videos, at least in this case), just as the myth of the prestigious Cornell couldn’t be wrong has been severely weakened with the lack of any solid follow-up evidence.
Seems to me that the best criticism from birders for the original Science paper regarding the Luneau video that would have more likely ended this fiasco would have been to stick with the basics like “where's the head,” “are we sure this is even a woodpecker,” etc.? If Jon Dunn actually said that he has "never seen such awful documentation on any record," then I'd say he’s right and that should have been the end of this.
However, Sibley et al. and folks like Collinson couldn't leave good enough alone (not once but now three times). They have done more harm than good by reengaging Fitzpatrick et al in a fruitless attempt to correct their original mistakes involving interpretation of video artifacts as plumage. By commenting further to the media regarding Collinson’s paper, Sibley personally shows himself at least as not being able to navigate out of the corner that has been created by him, his co-authors and some other skeptics.
Now there are no good solid alternatives left at present for how best to interpret the Luneau video. Until there emerges one, we are stuck with the Fitzpatrick et al. interpretation as the most parsimonious since no one can come up with a Pileated video bad enough to counter the Luneau video interpretation of the bird as most likely an Ivory-bill. And sorry folks, the Nolin videos, no matter how bad they can be made to look, show normally flying Pileateds every time doing what every other video of Pileateds show in terms of flight style and plumage characteristics. (Heh aren't folks like Sibley supposed to be the kings of interpreting flight "jizz"?) The Luneau video shows who knows what, but whatever it is, it is not a normally flying, “normally plumaged” Pileated no matter how convoluted folks try to make it to appear.
Anyway Sibley et al. got a nice paper in Science (actually two now) and Collinson got a paper in Biomed something or other that they can add to their resumes and we get another year of divisive debate over a really lousy video. Thanks guys!
Cyberthrush regularly ends his musings by stating that when a real photo of a real IBWO is produced "the skeptics" will not be allowed to participate in the festivities.
His reference to a time in the future when all will be revealed but only those who have been believers will be able to enjoy the celebration clearly has Christian roots - and displays the high level of hubris that is common to that group and TBs.
As a long-term skeptic I would like Cyberthrush and others to know that when they finally realize no irrefutable evidence is forthcoming I will not exclude them from the ongoing mourning that has been occurring ever since the IBWO "story" resulted in a giant step backwards for ornithology, birding and integrity.
"we are stuck with the Fitzpatrick et al. interpretation as the most parsimonious"
No we are not. The most parsimonious interpretation is to disregard the video entirely because it is too lousy. It is not obvious that we are dealing with a woodpecker, distinguishing open from closed and top and bottom wing surfaces has been problematic, we can't clearly see the head, bill, or any other feature, etc. Most importantly, essential field marks of neither IBWO nor PIWO are visible.
If, as seems likely, Pulliam has demonstrated serious problems with Sibley's interpretation, and Collinson's, this obviously does not strengthen Fitzpatrick et al's far less plausible interpretation, which is still laughable. My conclusion is that all of the interpretations, likely including Pulliam's, are in large part incorrect in that they are all overinterpreting a video so poor as to not have been worthy of serious consideration.
We skeptics should not fear critiques of Sibley and Collinson, as our position is amply supported for other reasons as documented by Tom and this blog. The IBWO atheist position certainly does not depend on the most prominent so-called skeptics such as Sibley and Jackson. Jackson continues to make pointless pronouncements on the need for bogus conservation, continues to hope that the IBWO may be found, and is, after all, largely responsible for enabling this fiasco in the first place. I commend Pulliam for being skeptical of "skeptics" who could have and should have stopped this absurdity a long time had they consistently expressed even some of the skeptical ideas presented here by Tom and commentators rather than engaging in useless discourse in a journal that seeks to obscure the truth.
Maybe I should change my name to the IBWO nihilist
Anonymous said...
"Meanwhile, Bill Pulliam is beside himself about why people don't believe his analysis of the Luneau Video.
Is there anyone other than Bobby and Bill that still believe the Lunneau video is an IBWO?"
Well, apparently all the 'Crows + Remsen still believe it, don't they?
To anonymous 10:56 pm 6 April, Pulliam supporter, and Collinson & Sibley "screwed the pooch" mad hatter: Those responsible for extending this debate and making it divisive are people like you, Pulliam, Cyberthrush, MinnyMe [ny], fangsheath, and the Fitzcrow team. If as you say the video is impossibly bad, then it can't be used to support the big claim that ivorybills have been refound. In that case, you should blame Fitzcrow for extending the debate because they chose to write a response at all, included made-up cut and paste photos that don't represent reality, promulgated specious claims on flight mechanics, etc. You should blame Pullium for picking and choosing frames (note there is not a complete sequence), misrepresenting and fabricating arguments, attributing those to others, and then attacking those self-erected strawmen to support his biased analysis. Worse, he couches it in how others have made "dumb" mistakes (see Birdchaser on Collinson). Not helpful. Has he made an attempt to collaborate or contribute to the published record? Nope.
Your argument that critiques are divisive is wrong. If nothing had been published calling into question the flimsy claims, then Jon Dunn's comment, which you so favour, would never have been uttered. Afterall, it was stated in response to the debate in Science last year. Thorough debate in peer-reviewed venues is necessary to ensure that conservation is based on broadly supported claims, not just politics and egos (book deals and the like). You overlook the bottomline by Sibley--no evidence confirms the reported rediscovery. Do you not agree with that? As repeatedly and effectively detailed on this blog, the money and effort devoted to this search is way out of proportion to scientific support for the claim and is certainly draining time and energy from equally or more worthy searches for hundreds of species that are known to need protection now, species that need to be refound, studied, and preserved. Why are they less worthy?
Hey, if you think it's divisive, don't say anything? The only point of your comment on this blog is to reinforce divisive thinking like Cyberthrush and supporters. It's just what you decry. Read the papers. Whose is tone is condescending and selective, harsh and specious (Fitzcrow and Pulliam) and whose is neutral and logical (Collinson and Sibley). Sorry, but redundant, lengthy observations by independent observers and/or a photograph is the only way forward. Debate of the video is necessary for conservation decisions in their absence.
You guys over on Birdforum dot Net trying to defend Bill Pulliam over here are too funny!
Bill Pulliam knows nothing about video artifacts. He proved it.
Even Bill Pulliam seems to admit that he cherry picked his frames of the Lunneau video in order to make his "point".
That's not science. I fear Bill has painted himself into the TB corner and can't find his way out.
"Bill Pulliam knows nothing about video artifacts. He proved it."
"he cherry picked his frames of the Lunneau [sic] video in order to make his "point"."
His valid if somewhat unintentional point was that the video is open to an array of interpretations ranging from the selective to the downright erroneous. In all cases, interpretation of such a poor video will be ambiguous.
He may be correct or incorrect with respect to which black or white splotches are bird and which are background artifacts, but in the end it doesn't really matter. The important point is that the primary data are so poor that we can never know for sure who is correct and who is merely clever.
Sibley's reconstructions are far more plausible than the CLOs (of course!), but it still requires considerable faith and imagination to connect his drawings to the actual blurry video stills.
Rather than attempt to prove a PIWO identification from hopeless video, why don't the peer-reviewed skeptics more aggressively refute other weak aspects of the TBs claims, i.e. their absurd mischaracterizations of Campephilus behavior, population biology, and extinction; and of current achievements, standards, and practices by birders and field ornithologists?
The CLO team should know about birding, as it includes the leaders of the legendary Sapsuckers of World Series of Birding (WSB) fame, who are now making a mockery of our pastime and could also be described as the Worst Stringers of Birding (WSB). Ever.
He may be correct or incorrect with respect to which black or white splotches are bird and which are background artifacts, but in the end it doesn't really matter.
Yes, it does matter. We, on this blog, showed that the Lunneau video is a pileated. It's not an IBWO. We didn't show that it's inconsistent with IBWO. We showed that it's not IBWO.
Sibley just put he finishing touches to the argument. Bill Pulliam is going to have a hard time resurrecting the IBWO from that video.
I tip my hat to IBWO Atheist for keeping some objectivity going with respect to new perspectives on the evidence and still concludes understandably the Luneau bird is neither demonstrated to be a Pileated nor an ivorybill (especially not the latter cause it's extinct).
I also give credit to Collinson for openly welcoming criticim with excellent humor:
Have seen your analyseseseseses. Not ignoring them. Taking time off from IBWOs to disprove the existence of everything else. Mostly actually waiting for a month or so to see what reaction comes from others, if any, then try and deal with it all in a oner, if that's going to be possible. Taking me a little while to get it into my head that all the pro-IBWO features are real and all the PIWO features are artifacts, but I'll get there. Fatal flaws? Who died? :-) Erk.
to which came the reply
Actually I only singled out one really pro-IBWO feature and that one only occupies a few pixels in two frames. The rest might be better described as anti-PIWO than pro-IBWO considering we know next to nothing about IBWOs in flight.
Hmmm...
Actually I only singled out one really pro-IBWO feature and that one only occupies a few pixels in two frames.
Yep. Doesn't every one realize how stupid that sounds. Bull Pulliam trying to pull an IBWO out of his hat with a few pixels. Haven't we gone thru that before? Has everyone forgotten the 6-pixel stob bird?
This latest Luneau video analysis is more ridiculous than the first.
IBWO Atheist is a closet TB.
"We, on this blog, showed that the Lunneau video is a pileated. It's not an IBWO."
Of course its not an IBWO. The US population has not been documented since 1944. Its defunct!
"We didn't show that it's inconsistent with IBWO."
Yes we did.
"We showed that it's not IBWO."
It wasn't really necessary to show this as the burden of proof should never have been on us in the first place.
"Sibley just put he finishing touches to the argument."
He certainly did. My point was simply that the video is sufficiently ambiguous that the match between his drawings and the actual video requires a (totally plausible) perceptual and conceptual leap. A confused or overly enthusiastic interpreter of the video or one playing devil's advocate can rearrange a few pixels here and there, misinterpret dorsal vs. ventral surfaces, and reach a different, erroneous conclusion. Questionable pixels should, of course, be interpreted reasonably and not turned into field marks of the extinct IBWO. However, I think it is counterproductive to overinterpret these pixels as conclusive PIWO field marks.
"Bill Pulliam is going to have a hard time resurrecting the IBWO from that video."
He doesn't have to. The CLO and friends already performed and reperformed this miracle in Science.
To pretend that Bill Pulliam added anything to the Luneau video analysis is utter stupidity. To conclude that it is even remotely possible that it depicts an IBWO is really so far out there, for all the reasons elucidated on this blog for the last 3 years, that it is in the realm of fantasy and not science.
And any purported view that accepts any of his rationalizations is ludicrous and is known to be erroneous reasoning.
"We, on this blog, showed that the Lunneau video is a pileated. Sibley just put he finishing touches to the argument."
I wonder if David A. Sibley, Louis R. Bevier, Michael A. Patten, Chris S. Elphick and Jerome A. Jackson would agree with this statement
Tom and the skeptics on this blog have always been right. TB's have always been wrong in this fiasco.
I don't mean right 90% of the time. I mean always right. 100%. We have always and unrelentingly called bullsh*t on any and all sightings and sounds.
I don't mean we hesitated and waited to see what the evidence was. I mean we immediately called their bluff.
Why? Because we know that the IBWO is extinct. You can't get more definite than that. Nor more right!
"it is in the realm of fantasy and not science"
Just like the original Science paper.
"I wonder if David A. Sibley, Louis R. Bevier, Michael A. Patten, Chris S. Elphick and Jerome A. Jackson would agree with this statement"
Priority is easy enough to establish. Just compare the dates of key postings here with the publication dates for the peer-reviewed articles.
Post a Comment