Here.
A related link is here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update5 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
12 comments:
The photographer sensibly followed the standard rules for capturing Bigfoot or Ivory-bills on film. The more of these rules you follow, the better the odds that your film will be accepted:
1. Keep it blurry.
2. Keep it shaky.
3. Keep it distant.
These are key in allowing people to see what they want to see, and allows a proper debate on artifacts, wing beats or stride, size, etc.
You can be certain that Auburn's film will follow at least one, and likely two or three of these rules.
In reference to Bevier's web page, Cyberthrush is saying that skeptics hammering on the Luneau video is "the art of distraction". He seems to have a very short memory of how this was held up as proof positive.
He then goes on to say that skeptics ignore the other evidence. I guess sightings, double knocks, and "putative" kent calls haven't been discussed by skeptics, right?
From cyberthrush's post:
Skeptics keep pulling the focus back to the Luneau video, acting as if only they just debunk it, it puts the case for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to rest. Don't look at 50 years worth of sightings; don't look at signs or sounds; just look at this single piece of evidence... ohhh, and by the way only look at it the way I do. They're like a rottweiler with a ragdoll, shaking it back-and-forth, unable to let go. As possibly the most quantifiable piece of evidence thus far, I s'pose nothing will deter folks from pouring over this one item of accidental evidence with a false sense of accomplishment or certainty.
Cyber, even though you may have discounted the video, many of your fellow believers have not, most notably CLO. Let's make a deal. You get Cornell to publicly withdraw their stated opinion that the bird in the video is a definitive IBWO (which will be tough since Fitz was still trumpeting that message at least as recently as this winter), and we'll lay off of it.
Surely, this is not where the IBWO fiasco is headed, is it? Discussion of bigfoot? What's next? Comparing it to UFO sightings and, heaven forbid, the Cold Fusion debacle?
Say it ain't so.
Dear TBs-
What part of "The bird in the Luneau video is a Pileated Woodpecker" don't you understand?
What part of "There is no other believable IBWO evidence" don't you understand?
The Luneau video was "manufactured into" an IBWO by CLO et al. to glue together their "cluster of other sightings." The level of circular reasoning on CLO's part defies all reason. CLO et al. are:
A. incompetent at bird ID
B. incompetent at video analysis
C. incredibly gullible
D. unethical
E. all of the above
One more time, there are NO authenticated IBWO records since 1944, and recent "clusters" of sightings in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not have a single "stand-alone" record among them. Therefore, there are no clusters, just "cluster-f's" if you get my drift.
"Surely, this is not where the IBWO fiasco is headed, is it? Discussion of bigfoot? What's next? Comparing it to UFO sightings and, heaven forbid, the Cold Fusion debacle?"
Its not headed there, its been there for years already. Literally.
Check google or the blog archives for classic IBWO Skeptic posts on these topics by Amy and many others. Comparisons with bigfoot, UFOs, and Cold Fusion became cliches long, long ago.
ibwo aethiest, what are you saying?
If you keep this up, there will be aliens posting here and some nut will begin with the IBWO poetry, and then before long some carpinterio fellow will weigh in with a bunch of nonsense with how the peer review was not done right.
Is that what you want? Is this where this is headed? To farce and nonsense?
kneep.....kneep....
Yep, Cyberthrush and Bill Pulliam are the sad remnants, abandoned by most of their supporters on the true believer's pseudoscientific team. Oh yeah, Hill's still with them.
Pulliam's "flight mechanics" argument is right up there with Hill's "bark adhesion" as examples of the "if not quite Pileated, then Ivory-billed!" fallacy that has been such a standard for Ivory-billed research.
Now that Cornell seems to be trying to quietly back away (slightly) it may be these guys whose hard work keeps the spotlight on the pile of garbage and prevents CLO from simply escaping into the shadows.
Describing "sightings of the IBWO" as "evidence" for the IBWOs continued existence is like describing the Book of Genesis as "evidence" that the world was created in 7 days.
Such question-begging arguments appeal only to the converted, and do not qualify as "evidence."
The existence of human beings who report "sightings" of IBWOs is merely another fact that must be explained by skeptics.
Fortunately, that explanation is as trivial to reasonable people as it is devastating to the True Believers and their enablers.
To Bill Pulliam, I must respectfully disagree with your view that "flight mechanics" have any real meaning in this case at all. The amount of difference you are showing is small and might be better explained through flight variability than the bird not being a Pileated.
A bird's wing shape and position, while subject to physical limitations, are highly variable. One only has to sit at a hawkwatch in varying conditions to see how incredibly varied wing position and shape can be. A different wing shape would be expected to create a different flap style.
You make the statement "In every wingbeat, the Luneau bird holds its wings with a strong downward bend at the wrist from nearly the beginning of the stroke."
OK, but WHY do you feel this is significant? What is it that convinces you that a Pileated can't fly this way? Is there something in the wing structure itself?
You seem to be making the assumption that you have seen videos of Pileated flying the same way the Luneau bird does, and the flap isn't the same therefore the species is (or may not be) the same. I don't believe you can make that assumption. Here are a few variables that you need to consider:
- State of the bird (calm or panicked)
- What the bird is setting up to do (rising in Luneau)
- Flight path (open or tree filled)
- Wind conditions (speed and direction compared to the bird's flight)
- Atmospheric conditions (airplanes, for example, have a harder time taking off when it's warm)
- Individual size/weight differences (incl. if they're heavy with food or not)
The difference in flight mechanics between an albatross and an egret are obvious, but I think in this case you're making too much of some rather subtle differences. I don't disagree that you've found some differences. I just don't find those differences to be significant.
- Luneau Atheist
It wasn't a bigfoot because Alabama is outside the distribution of that species. It couldn't be anything other than a ManBearPig....
"it may be these guys whose hard work keeps the spotlight on the pile of garbage and prevents CLO from simply escaping into the shadows"
You're absolutely right. Ultimately the TBs will have been hurt the most by this fiasco, and they will not go down without an embarrassing fight. Like Civil War reenactors, the hardcore TBs will construct an alternative universe where the old South prevails.
Post a Comment