Here.
Update: Don't miss Kenn Kaufman's response here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
8 comments:
Now that was interesting. I read about that theory on this blog back in 2005.
Yeah, welcome to 2 years ago.
On his website, he says that there is no black trailing edge to the underside of the wing in the referenced frame of the Luneau video. Instead the black is part of the background. Of course, Fishcrow needs to get himself a better monitor and maybe zoom in on the video. If he does he will see that the black clearly is not part of the background. He also says that the Luneau bird is similar in some ways to his Pearl video, Tyler Hicks' sighting and some Tanner photo. He better be careful when saying his Pearl video has consistencies with the Luneau video, or he may end up giving himself enough rope...
It's ironic that he is very close to calling the Luneau bird a Pileated, when, if I recall correctly, it was the Arkansas "discovery" that gave him the motivation to "relocate" the IBWO he was sure he had heard several years previous near Stennis. (Of course, we all know now that nobody can justifiably call any "kent" call a definitive IBWO). OK, I know he is not really close to calling the bird a Pileated, as that would cause him all sorts of problems, especially after the similarities he noted above, but he has at least taken the first baby-steps there. I would love to see him actually try to back up his claim that the black trailing edge is not part of the bird's wing. If only he gave a damn about what the birding establishment ("The Man"), or bloggers, or commenters on blogs thought, he might read this comment and respond.
Also, I wonder, why, if he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, did he post something on ID-Frontiers?
someone please tell me that this truest of the true, is just now taking note of frame 33.3 ... the frame on which this hole thing most clearly falls apart?
in this frame, which indeed Fitz et al, described as the back of the woodpecker, we see most clearly, as it is the most in focus, the underside of the wing, with the black trailing edge.
when you enlarge and slow down this part of the video - it is most clear, just looking at the frame stills it is harder to see. But when you see the motion of the thing you can clearly get a feeling for how the bird is moving - i'e pushing off the back of the tree, flying away from the camera.
I've never been too interested in all the parsing of blurr that happens after this, after the TB's get 33.3 wrong, everything else is just distraction.
note too, that the Fitz et al paper uses the video to establish several kinds of "evidence" - namely size, flap rate and coloration.
Size was based completely on the position of 33.3 supplying a wrist to tip measurement which was then scaled off the diameter of the tree and used to show that the bird is probably BIGGER than a pileated. since you can't take the measurement the way they say they took the measurement - this is out.
Flap rate was simply made up and then compared to an old recording of some wing noise n=1. Nelson details why they get flap rate wrong in numerous places.
and in 33.3 we get the double benny of a nice view of the underside of the wing - black trailing edge. Plumage out.
So to review, no evidence presented in the Lunneau video establishes the size, flap rate or coloration of the bird as "inconsistent" with pileated.
to recap:
This entire episode is based on the sighting of this bird by two men who were tired and hungry, and who were on a quest to see one of these birds and engaged in writing books about finding one of these birds and who lived in houses full of decorations and artwork of these birds, such that this bird was literally - an self described "obsession". The observation which sent the train out of the station was made during a split second wherein one said to the other "look at all the white on the trailing edge" to insure that the powers of critical self questioning were suspended. Whereupon this testimony was repeated breathlessly to a very powerful man, Fitz, who later became Fitz -crow - who had enough power to actually get people to SIGN "non disclosure agreements" and was able to create such a high level of anxiety and expectation, that several other people got fleeting glimpses of the bird too. Believing that all these weak sightings were collectively "a robust" sighting, and that that all these sightings can't be mistaken, they fabricated some EVIDENCE - without which we can't say to be doing science ... on a blurry video which they in turn sold it to Don Kennedy, who later realized he had let his gaurd down, skipped the peer review component of the publication process, and acted too implusively ... and now, only now are this charade's biggest proponents getting around to seeing frame 33.3????
"it should be required reading for anyone who is still interested in flogging this apparently-extinct horse."
Kenn Kaufman
How do we get the mainstream media to grasp the idea that the IBWO is "still extinct?" I mean, the thrilling "rediscovery" was a STORY. What will it take before they recognize a real story in the fact it was a bunch of baloney?
someone please tell me that this truest of the true, is just now taking note of frame 33.3 ... the frame on which this hole thing most clearly falls apart?
Not a whole lot to add to the 1:47 a.m. post, except that we should be wary of playing the game of analyzing any frames of this worthless video. That, after all, is exactly what Fitzcrow et al. would like us to do. It creates the illusion of "controversy".
In fact, there is no "frame" of the video that is any more or less important than any other frame.
The video is, to any objective observer, a blurry pile of garbage that makes Patterson's Bigfoot video look like it was shot by Stanley Kubrick. The video doesn't prove a damn thing except that, under the right circumstances, you can get anything published in Science magazine and subsequently pawned off on the public like it was the greatest thing since the McDLT.
Whether the video is "inconsistent" with a pileated or a passenger pigeon means nothing. All that matter is that for the purposes of proving that IBWO's live, the video is a very bad joke, made worse by the fact that quite a few "scientists" and "experts" who should know better did not stand up in real time and say: "This baloney smells bad."
If you want to argue that the video proves anything, it's best to argue (as the 1:47 am commenter suggests in the final paragraph) that it proves the extent to which people are willing to delude others if it makes a good story.
I respectfully suggest that even better arguments exist for making that point than the video (the laughable concept of the "unique" double-knocking sound being the finest example of pure horse-hockey these "scientists" successfully peddled ... for a time).
In fact, there is no "frame" of the video that is any more or less important than any other frame.
well, I agree, in part, but 33.3 is significant since it is the basis for a whole branch of the science paper.
I think it is legitimate to note that the authors of the paper argue that the video provides several types of evidence - ie, they claim that they have evidence that shows - how big it is, how fast it flaps, how it sounds, and what it looks like - it is the accumulation of these pieces of evidence that "rule out" another explaination.
so really from the stand point of science it is fair to discriminate between the frames - since they are being used to establish different kinds of evidence.
forget for a minute the supposed controversy over what kind of bird this is - it is fair to say that several of the types of evidence presented in the paper are demonstrably wrong - flap rate, and size - Fitz is just wrong.
So that does, as you say leave us with blur ... and the biggest one - authority. It is what I say it is because I have a lot of "authority".
Jerry Jackson said it best, "faith based ornithology".
Meanwhile, don't deprive yourself the amusement of reading Fishcrow's 7-29-07 rant....
7/29: It seems to spend more time on the ground (especially near river banks) than indicated in the literature.
8/4: I'm now reading "Life Above the Jungle Floor," by Donald Perry, who exploited his access to the canopy to obtain the first photos of the Tiny Hawk and the Great Potoo. Hopefully, this approach will also pay off in the Pearl.
They spend a lot of time on the ground, so fishcrow is going to photograph them from the top of the canopy. Uh, yeah.
Post a Comment