Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Mann Again4 days ago
-
-
-
The age of underpopulation is here2 weeks ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係2 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To3 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Posts
Comments
13 comments:
One of the best IBWO-related posts ever!
Next time the friend should send his report to the Arkansas committee.
As someone who has travelled a short distance to see a Spectacled Warbler (then the UK second), that was in fact an unusual Whitethroat, this made me chuckle.
In an ancient post Cyberthrush had a different take:
This is a post for the skeptics out there... Suppose you come and tell me you saw a Summer Tanager in your backyard, and I say no you didn't, you saw a Cardinal. Next week you tell me you saw the Summer Tanager again, and I say you're mistaken it was more likely a Cardinal. Eventually you bring me a photograph, I say you doctored it, it was originally a photo of a Cardinal. You bring me a video, I say it was taken in another state, not in your backyard; when your 2 birding friends see it with you, I call it 'groupthink' -- nothing you say or show me can 'prove' you've ever had a Summer Tanager in your backyard -- on the 20th occasion of you're reporting a Tanager, I say, how in the hell can I believe you when you've given me 19 false, mistaken, unconfirmed, or doctored reports in the past. In simplistic terms this is essentially the scenario with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker over decades, earlier unconfirmed reports becoming a priori a basis for discounting future reports. It is nothing less than an unrecognized close-minded form of circular or self-fulfilling-prophesizing, or self-reinforcing groupthink, if you prefer. It's amazing that in popular press skeptics still get away with saying the Ivory-bill hasn't been seen for 60 years when all the evidence indicates otherwise. Again I'll reiterate that the potential damage already done by overblown skepticism (and the stigmatization that follows) far exceeds any potential damage from overblown optimism -- we're talking about the life or death of a species here!
To which I replied:
This is a post for the believers out there... Suppose you come and tell me you saw a Summer Tanager in your backyard, and you and I both know that Summer Tanagers were extremely rare if not extinct in the region where we live. I say that given the rarity of the species and its similarity to the Cardinal I would like something other than an undocumented sight record. Next week you tell me you saw the Summer Tanager again, and I say that I am excited by the possibilities but the implications of the sightings are so large the validity of the sighting has to meet a very high standard. Eventually you bring me a photograph that you say shows a Summer Tanager but it needs a good amount of interpretation (i.e. it is not what one gets when does a Google image search for "Summer Tanager"). You bring me a video and it has the same problems as your photo. I am beginning to wonder what sort of criteria you use for validating your observations but admire your intense interest in the species.
The next thing I know you have gone to the press with an exclusive story of the "rediscovery" of Summer Tanagers, you have set up a way for the public and government to buy your property, all of the property around it and fund you and your friends (who corroborated your sightings) so you can make more detailed observations of Summer Tanagers. Before going public you failed to engage those people or groups who might require additional documentation. The following spring, when your backyard has become the mecca for Summer Tanager fans around the world, you have people looking all over your property and the adjacent property to confirm your observations. Unfortunately no definitive observations are forthcoming. World experts on the Summer Tanager express their doubts about your previous "sightings".
Given the lack of new sightings and reconsideration of the original ones, some people are thinking the "entire exercise may be nothing less than an unrecognized close-minded form of circular or self-fulfilling-prophesizing, or self-reinforcing groupthink, if you prefer". Rather than wanting to entertain the idea that the Summer Tanager is not present in your backyard you point out that it could well exist in someone else's backyard. And you then start to question the integrity and character of those who do not believe your original observations - even though each day that goes by without a corroborating sighting increases the possibility that their skepticism is more appropriate than your optimism.
I gotta give a big shout out to Soggy Bill. I'm glad that he is in a dialog with Martin of Abeerdeen, or whatever dutchy. I was a big fan of Soggy when he sided with the skeptics on the interpretation of 33.3 ... but then he goes off the reservation and back on the bandwagon in somekind of marathon hermenutical analysis of the video.
I have to admit I don't have the stamina. It often feels like trying to discuss the idea of biblical inerrancy with a learned evangelical. You just never get anywhere even though you are advancing a moderate idea, and they are advancing a radical idea.
Soggy Bill says that the video is the only evidence. Agreed.
He says that we should have a mature meeting of the minds on this evidence. Agreed.
I feel that if the video shows black trailing edge in ANY part of the video then it is not IBWO.
To me, since we agree that we are seeing the underwing in 33.3 and every frame after that is increasingly blurred and white bled.
So the whole thing can stand or fall on the few frames around 33.3.
And there is a black trailing edge in those frames ... please bill ... you have given me that we agree what part of the bird we are looking at in that frame, why won't you give me (and martin) the satisfaction of also "seeing" the black edge of the wing.
I agree with you comment to martin, but why do you persist in going on beyond the point where the video is best, and and least supportive of the position you seem to be advancing.
All of Soggy bill's protestations aside, martin's parable is a good one. It's only short coming is that it is told from the perspective of a twitcher with the aspirations of a twitcher and the limited scope of possiblilites of a twitcher.
I point this out because this isn't just a twitchers tale. This crossed that boundary the moment that John Fitzpatrick got involved.
At this point it was a tale of who decides what the priorities of the conservation community/industry.
I say this not to tear down those who work in this industry, but to deny that this is the case, that this is the story of one man's influence and power is simply to misunderstand the essense of this story.
This isn't about a bird ID this is an epic tale of power and influence in the interrelations of the multi billion dollar TNC, the public agencies who oversee the nations wildlife resources, a powerful academic department and the personal power of one successful and influential man.
This story can't be understood by relating it to a bunch of olive clad twitchers. It lacks the neccesary scale and magnitude.
Billcrow is very psuedo-scientific. You confuse his credentials because he agreed with us on 33.3. But that just goes to show the randomness of his thought process.
Remember, he agreed with us. We never agree with him. He's a follower of us. Not a leader.
One thing I don't get with Bill's analysis. It's known that that white bleeds and black does not. The most obvious example are time elapsed photos of star trails. If black bled, it would obscure the moving stars, not vice versa.
Now Bill shows that dark appears at the trailing edge and tip when the wing is against a darkish backgroud. Wouldn't that be expected? A white wing with a black edge against a light background would have the potential for bleed from both sides (wing and background), hence the likelihood of bleeding out the black would be pretty high in that situation.
Put the same wing against a darker background and there would be only bleed from the white in the wing, making it more likely for the black to show up.
This seems pretty logical to me, and it appears that Bill has completely missed that point.
Am I missing something? (That's a question,not a snark.)
The missed point: these black edges appear on the leading edge of the wing as well as the trailing edge. If they were just the real black trailing edge appearing where the background is darker, they would not show up on the leading edge also.
The supposed black leading edges show up in a few frames. I had to blow up Bill's pics to see more details, but this is my take.
467: I blew this up and the pale tree in the background splits the white and the black at the tip. This looks more like a white right underwing and a black dark upperwing to me. Otherwise, where did the split tip come from? That's awfully PIWO looking to me.
483: The smoking gun! When blown up, the supposed black on the leading edge fades to gray. It is much less intense when blown up, yet the black wingtip remains black. There's no comparing this edge to the intensity of the black wingtips.
167, 183: It's a freakin' blob!
233: Slightly more than a blob, but still unable to see a real wing shape.
250: This is where it gets interesting. Across the background, I see areas darker than the background all the way across the wingtip. They are darkest in front of the dark backgrounds and lighter in front of the light backgrounds (remember bleed?), but always darker than the background. So you could say that something darkened the background to some degree the length of the entire wingtip. Something like, say, a dark wingtip.
267: I see black across both the dark background and reaching into the left pale trunk in the background. Also darkish gray going into the pale trunk to the right. Black now bleeding across other parts of the background? That makes no sense. Unless it's a dark wingtip.
I think the place to concentrate on with these snaps is the wingtip, not looking for edges. The darkness shows up strongest at the wingtip when against a background not able to bleed.
IMHO, the wingtip looks dark from end to end. That's highly indicative of PIWO over IBWO. Some might say diagnostic.
Maybe it is best to leave this bird unidentified, but to say either all frames are consistent with IBWO or they show effects that can be explained away (I'm not saying Bill took that stance, but Cornell certainly has) would be incorrect. Again, IMHO.
Umm... both species have black wingtips...
If you accept even some of the black leading edges, then you've undermined any ID based on any of the black edges, leading or trailing.
this is why i've said the whole thing can stand or fall in the little snip around 33.3. In this frame you can see the underwing as the bird leaps off the tree.
there is a black trailing edge everything else after this is just silly. (and even 33.3 might be silly).
early on the skeptics were saying that 33.3 wasn't a perched bird, it was an underwing and once soggy bill decided to go down that path, I thought we had him, but when soggy bill emerges from the other side of the tree he gets all fuzzy on me.
Once you accept 33.3 isn't perched on the tree like the fitz paper says it is, you have to then accept that you are seeing black trailing edge.
Soggy bill writes this off by saying "way to narrow" ... which I attribute to the fact that the bird is lifting off and the wing is pushing lots of air at the viewer. Sorry bill - it is there in 33.3 - and that means it is there in all the other whitebled frames.
Umm... both species have black wingtips...
IBWO has a black block (see only flight shot in existence) that does not extend around the wingtip. PIWO has a narrower black band curving all the way around the tip of the wing.
Since we know that black can't bleed (you can't smear non-photons), then black around the entire end of the wingtip is inconsistent with IBWO. Frames show a full curving black arc. To try to call that photographic effect, when the supposed leading edge effect is not even close to being as dark and solid, is a bad argument.
On a side note, one other thing not mentioned is the broad paddle-shaped look to the wings. Compare the shape to the Nolin vidoes and the flight shot of IBWO. IBWO shows a slim wing (hence all the "it's supposed to fly like a Pintail" comments). Very bad match for IBWO in the Luneau video.
Good job, Skeptics! That pretty well converts Soggy Bill into a Billcrow.
Post a Comment