------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever: http://amasci.com/tesla/ballsci.txt
...and elsewhere on the Web:
If this picture is any indication of mutations-to-be, I s'pose any photograph of a purported Ivory-billed Woodpecker is also now useless as evidence; we will need DNA!
....and some more remarkable pics here (nothing to do with IBWOs):
http://fireflyforest.net/firefly/2006/10/11/tucsons-hummingbird-feeder-bats/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 comments:
Interesting reference:
What we are faced with here is not so much simple passivity or mistrust of new ideas as an active approach which can be divided into several stages.
(1) A contradiction to the system appears unthinkable
(2) What does not fit into the system remains unseen;
(3) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret, or
(4) laborious efforts are made to explain an exception in terms that do not contradict the system.
(5) Despite the legitimate claims of contradictory views, one only tends to see, describe, or even illustrate those circumstances which corroborate current views and thereby give them substance.
What does not fit the theory is thus excluded. The anomalous event is forced outside the official circle of consciousness into a kind of outlaw existence.
This seems, to me, to be a perfect explanation of what went on with the Cornell team in Arkansas, and the Auburn team in Florida. Both came to the idea very quickly that the IBWO existed at these sites, and that it had been seen/detected. (I think one of the Auburn team claimed to have seen one within the first hour of searching.) They then actively discarded and discounted any alternative explanations for the "detections", such as other species, inexperienced observers, expectation bias. Failure to obtain recognizable photographs was explained away by more and more baroque explanations. (Bird nomadic, bird super shy, ...) Legitimate criticisms and alternative analysis of date (Sibley, Collinson) is discarded in a most irrational fashion--it becomes "outlaw science" with only the believer view valid.
Yes, this is an excellent description of the believer point of view. I hate to quote The-Blog-that-shall-not-be-named, but this is exactly what Nelson talked about with Ivorybill "Groupthink". You have hit the nail on the head.
Some folks see the glass as 20% full, some see it as 80% empty....
But the problem with this is many good quality birders in multiple states have seen these birds and identified key field marks. Sightings would not occur if the bird was not there!!!
Don't know if "anonymous" is being facetious or not(????) -- certainly 'sightings' can occur when birds aren't there, it is only the volume of them over the history of the IBWO, and the magnitude of the error required, that calls into question if this can account for every single IBWO claim.
How I would describe it is the quality of the observer having the sighting and they realize what they saw was not a pileated based on the numerous previous sightings they'd had of that species and it was clearly larger, flew differently, had different field marks etc.
And the fact that people still have sightings of this bird and either don't or have very rare ones for the Eskimo Curlew and Bachman's Warbler makes it all the more likely to me that the IBWO survives while the other said species do not!
And answer this skeptics please don't you find it reasonable that if you have 2 or 3 birds in 40-50+ square miles of forest that it would be nearly impossible to get a good photo of them???
As I get more and more sickened by this whole state of affairs. You really really depress me!
Peter
And answer this skeptics please don't you find it reasonable that if you have 2 or 3 birds in 40-50+ square miles of forest that it would be nearly impossible to get a good photo of them???
No. It should be a virtual certainty that someone would get a good quality photo. Do believers actually think 100% of the birds can avoid skilled photographers or automatic cameras 100% of the time for 6 decades? Obviously, they do. I don't know a single objective, experienced birder that does however.
There are lots more Elvis sightings than James Dean sightings, but I don't think that makes it more likely that Elvis is still alive.
I know what the fevered imaginations of Believers can do after seeing the Collins and Cornell videos. If they positively identify Ivory-bills in those videos I understand why they keep spotting them, but not getting a good photo, in the wild.
There haven't been skilled photographers and automated cameras even deployed trying to get a photo of this bird but for the past four years out of the past 60 as far as I'm aware.
And I ask what the bird in the most recent Collin's video is? there don't seem to be many choices other than a duck or IBWO, and I don't think that's a duck. Unless ducks have trailing white panels on the dorsal surfaces of their wings (like this bird appears to have in multiple frames) and tuck their wings in flight.
I actually see things in this video without having to have it pointed out to me. Unlike others I've seen.
Peter
I agree Peter the photography issue is nothing at all -- very possible for a very few birds to go unphotographed for 60 or even 100 years, but as to Mike's latest video I'm not convinced the choices are down solely to duck or IBWO, but we'll see what further analysis brings out if anything (for now I have difficulty with a IBWO interpretation from what I see on my screen -- it's not something I care to discuss; I'll simply wait to see what sort of overall case Mike eventually puts forth).
"I agree Peter the photography issue is nothing at all -- very possible for a very few birds to go unphotographed for 60 or even 100 years"
Possible, or probable?
"many good quality birders in multiple states have seen these birds and identified key field marks."
I disagree very strongly with this as I am not aware of ONE "good quality" birder who claims to have seen the bird well.
And the 'new' Collins video is surely not being discussed in a serious manner? I mean, just look at it!
The Collins video is ridiculous
If you can see an identifiable bird species in it, then you're kidding yourself.
It is unidentifiable. Stop stringing.
What other choices are there then Cyber? I'm not aware of other birds around 18-20" in length that would fit the appearance/ body shape of this bird and can be found in the SE swamps? and then there's that white on the wings!
I dunno I just wonder what it could be and it does make sense for an IBWO to me!
Peter
hi Peter, sorry I'm not going to enter a debate about what the bird is at this point, except to say that my first impression is not IBWO. Mike has the raw data and will no doubt put his full case and analysis forward in time, and I'll look that over when it comes. For now, I think it just too early to debate, and moreover I'm convinced from comments already out there (some saying they can't even make out a bird) as well as from the Luneau video experience, that what one sees depends in part on what software and hardware you are running.
skeptics, skeptics, gesh! you should really use your eyes and brains for something more befitting you. Bashing others and spitting crap is not positive!
And, yes, good quality birders have seen IBWO's recently. They're so gawdy and different from pileateds that they should be pretty easy to diffentiate.
You don't call Hicks an excellent birder? from what I've read about him he's among the best.
Peter
Peter, Tell you what: You give me $500 now, and if anyone in my lifetime conclusively documents the Ivory-bill I'll give you $1,000.
skeptics, skeptics, gesh! you should really use your eyes and brains for something more befitting you. Bashing others and spitting crap is not positive! Pot, kettle.
$500 is a lot of money to me being so shy and thus jobless! I'm just frustrated at how seemingly mean and cruel the skeptics have become. I mean come on bashing people because they say they've seen this bird!! I don't see it as hard to indentify being that many of the sightings state that it was so different from a Pileated??
I mean this is just such an awesome bird that I am really pulling for it to be confirmed with a good photo! I just wish some wouldn't be so mean and seemingly wanting this bird to be extinct. I mean don't we all have hope for this world with all the bad things that are happening??
I'm just thinking it deserves better.
Peter
Peter, your approach to bird identification is evident from your opinion on the bird in the Collins video.
'they should be pretty easy to differentiate' you say. A typical comment from a novice at bird id.
Have you not noticed that the only videos purporting to be IBWO are those videos too poor to identify the bird to any degree of certainty.
And no, Hicks isn't a great birder at all. Rather average and a loose cannon, I hear, from people who've met him.
I wouldn't get toooo caught up with all the sound and fury Peter (there are bigger issues in the world). IBWO news could break in the next 30 days or next year or never. Individual skeptics have made their case and will either be bolstered in that time or they will have to live with their own words, but minds and attitudes aren't going to change here. Just a waiting game for now. And with that, I think I'll close off comments on this thread/post.
Post a Comment