--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo forged....
Bill Pulliam has broken the unfortunate news of mystery bird #3 at his blog here. I'm not even sure myself if Bill knows how little of the official story had been released on the blogosphere yet (this may even be a 'canned' post since I believe he is still away from computer access; not sure). My own intention was not to say much until Gary had spoken his peace on the matter. Though now I may post later this evening or tomorrow, whether or not Gary has posted anything.
I will remind folks that there is other evidence besides the #3 bird color photo, but I don't know anything about the handling/processing of the Reconyx pictures to know if there is any possibility that they could be compromised.
Obviously, a very sad, disturbing turn of events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 comments:
I don't know what the hell Steve was thinking, but faking evidence does immeasurable harm to conservation of the Ivory-bill and to the reputations of others who are looking for it.
Steve was emboldened by no one ever saying a word about those elaborate color masterpiece drawings he did of his circa 1983 alleged sightings.
He based his 2006ish art work on some old notes and sketches he had made that no one ever saw or even asked to see. IBWO researcher net was especially kind to him.
He had nasal bristles, every feather drawn about right. Still made some mistakes though.
It was an obvious fabrication of discernalbe field details even if he had seen the IBWO when he was 13.
Yet no one called him on it.
Didn't the experts check the authenticity of pix 3? There is technology to check for these things.
tks FV
tks FV
So that explains why the field marks on the mystery woodpecker were irreconcilable with any species. I'm glad he admitted to the forgery--but WHAT was his motive? It went way beyond a simple joke. How can he expect anybody to now believe that he ever saw one when he was younger?
If you put attention-seeking frauds, pixel-sampling 'science' and a gullible bunch of people in a room, this is what happens. Just as Tom Nelson predicted I think?
Thank goodness we had the "experts" to analyse the photograph.
If you put attention-seeking frauds, pixel-sampling 'science' and a gullible bunch of people in a room, this is what happens. Just as Tom Nelson predicted I think?
Thank goodness we had the "experts" to analyse the photograph.
x2
Post a Comment