1. Check out Bill Pulliam's assessment of a Fishcrow video in the "calm light of morning" here.
An excerpt:
...Light-colored secondaries. White trailing edge. I keep looking at the geometry and the particulars, and I still cannot turn it into an artifact or an illusion caused by fortuitous juxtaposition of different parts of the bird or any stationary objects. All together now... YEEHAW!2. Bill describes his reaction to the Luneau video here. An excerpt:
...
Ya done nabbed that sucker, Mike.
...And this is why I am convinced by the Bayou de View sightings and video. When I finally got that video to download and play on my computer I practically jumped up and started dancing and hollering "YEE HAW!!! No $@$%#@ way that bird is a %#%^$ Pileated!!!!!" It's all in the jizz, and that jizz is NO Pileated, not even remotely. If that is a pileated then my chickens are tinamous. You can holler yourself horse about upperwings and underwings and leading edges and trailing edges and halo effects if you like, bury your head looking for the Field Marks (tm), meanwhile missing the sledgehammer of jizz trying to get your attention by pounding on your head with sirens wailing and big flashing neon letters declaring "IVORYBILL IVORYBILL IVORIBILL!!!!!!!"3. Bill provides his first impressions of the Choctawhatchee "evidence" here.
An excerpt:
Y'all are tripping if you think those are ordinary sounds made by common swamp denizens, especially considering that they got a rap or a kent about every 30-40 hours on average. You can spend a HELL of a lot longer than 40 hours in the company of all the ordinary critters (and tree squeeks, etc.) of the swamps and never hear anything like that. I've spent thousands of hours in their good company and never heard those kenty noises.
Y'all are tripping if you think Tyler Hicks' sighting is just a Pileated and a lot of wishful thinking. Upperwing and underwing patterns, black crest, dorsal stripes...
Posts
8 comments:
I am apparently tripping.
You can spend a HELL of a lot longer than 40 hours in the company of all the ordinary critters (and tree squeeks, etc.) of the swamps and never hear anything like that. I've spent thousands of hours in their good company
Squirrels are great listeners, Bill, aren't they?
Actually, Tom you've struck gold here. It really explains Soggy Bill's refusal to let the Luneau video go.
He was so wrong at the beginning that he has to convince people that there is still some doubt as to what the video portrays. In other words, he wants us to believe that wise men can differ on the Luneau video.
Instead of just admitting he blundered badly in the beginning, he is psychologically so bought in that he has to keep obscuring the issue.
Unfortunately, it only works with Cyberthrush anymore. But for his own sake, Bill can't let go.
Sad.
You could spend a lifetime trying to separate these birds on the open ocean by field marks, but once you learn their "jizz" it's a snap.
Bill is making the classic intermediate birder mistake. He's found a new toy, and it's the answer to every ID problem. Guess what, Bill. Jizz is a great indicator and can be diagnostic, but it is NOT the 100% solution.
I know of a vagrant hummingbird misidentified by an excellent birder who relies very heavily on jizz. He didn't look at the field marks, including throat pattern, flank color, and primary shape ... all field marks and not jizz. As a result, he didn't even get the genus correct. He's an excellent birder, but in this one case he used only jizz and he blew the ID.
[you just TRY to identify a Pterodroma on the wing without jizz!]
I know a bit about seabirds, and have identified multiple pterodroma petrels. Since you're such an expert on the use of jizz, please explain the difference in the jizz between a Bermuda Petrel and a Fea's Petrel. I've picked out pterodromas by jizz but identified them with field marks. By the way, if you've read the articles in Birding in the past, you'll note that articles on both species
Anon wrote:
"Unfortunately, it only works with Cyberthrush anymore. But for his own sake, Bill can't let go."
Actually, this still aptly describes the motivations of Fitz, Remsen, Rosenberg, Hill, et al. They won't let go and they continue to be in denial and generally out of touch with reality just as they were from the day that Gallagher first pushed Fitz over the believer threshold. CLO et al. sought not to get objective outside advice about the Luneau video and "the cluster" and their excuse was that that would have been a "confidentiality risk." In reality, had they done this, they know that they would have gotten a lot of negative feedback. So, the only option compatible with their agenda was "damn the torpedos."
By the way, if you've read the articles in Birding in the past, you'll note that articles on both species...
Hmmmmm. Got cut off. The finish is:
...relied almost entirely on field marks for identification, not on jizz.
This sounds more like "Heehaw" than "Yeehaw", but then what else should one expect from Nashville?
Hey, doesn't jizz only work if you are intimately familiar with and have seen both species well and often?
Post a Comment