--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days ago I bemoaned some people straying too far off post-topic in their comments, so here's your chance... I'll try an experimental "open thread" where you can bring up any concern related to the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker --- it could be from 60 years ago, or from this week. Here is what I do request:
#1. I'd still like people to focus primarily on issues surrounding claims and evidence and related matters, though other Ivory-bill subjects are ok, and some people may simply feel the need to vent a bit at the moment.
#2. I ask that people NOT engage in personal attacks on individuals or institutions (combining #1 and #2 I know is a fine line for some of you ;-) --- this does not mean you can't offer criticism of such, but if you do so, remain civil and thoughtful.
#3. Finally, I hope the space will not be monopolized by 2-3 people going repeatedly back and forth at each other with their own pet peeves which may not be of interest to the readership in general.
With those few guidelines, we'll give it a try. I hope some good can come out of this, but if things get too nasty, repetitive, unproductive, I'll just pull the plug on it, and of course I'll be continuing normal posts as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 comments:
Just a comment on the difficulty of getting a good recognizable photograph. I live in an area with many red-headed woodpeckers, and during the summer usually see one or two every day on my drive home from work, through open country, as they often perch on telephone poles.
Despite seeing so many, and despite being a supposed avian photographer, you know how many top-notch photos I have of the species? Zero. I have some where the bird is certainly recognizable and even a couple I've deemed barely adequate for my website.
However, despite seeing the birds nearly every day in summer, despite living in an area with few obstructions for photography, I have very few photos of the species, and it hasn't been for a lack of trying. The most common scenario is to see one on a telephone pole or tree, and have it hitch around to the exact opposite side when it spots me.
Lack of photo evidence for IBWO? Certainly not a surprise to me. Here we're not talking RH Woodpecker in open country. We're talking about an extremely rare bird in dense veg, and likely a very mobile and transient bird at that.
I'm unconvinced by any photo or video evidence to date. I'm unconvinced by any audio evidence to date. However, I still believe the species exist. Too many claims of good sightings by well-respected folks.
Whatever happened to the fellow from FL with the photos and forthcoming book?
Whatever happened to the fellow from FL with the photos and forthcoming book?
It looks like vaporware - his website hasn't changed since he announced the "forthcoming" book.
The FL teaser appropriately initialed BS, came out of hiding in a post a few days ago according to a poster; I think that fella was right that it was him/it.
BS announced a book, then said it was nearly done then nothing. Claims he was seeing them and had good photos, after previously having no great ones for years. An associate went down to the area and BS did not lend any assistance, couldn't return either of a few calls or emails.
This after the associate had been fair to BS for years. From that post a few days ago, the unusual BS site, his strange posts for over a year, his blatant and not easily hidden hate for academia, his reaction to fair questions, he seems unstable.
The rest the FL searcher/visitor can say if he wants, I'll advise him of the open thread.
tks
Mr. Sohl, i think you sell yourself short on your photographs of Red-headed woodpeckers: http://sdakotabirds.com/species_photos/red_headed_woodpecker_1.htm
Lack of photo evidence for IBWO? Certainly not a surprise to me. Really? You think it's logical to expect 100% of the Grail Bird species to evade having an identifiable photograph taken of them by 100% of the photographers and automatic cameras 100% of the time for six decades, and now with a $50,000 reward out there?
Prior poster, anyone please address these facts:
a) Only a few US IBWOS were shot and only one was photographed ( the photo is very poor) from 1910 to 1931. Yet at least 40 existed on average each year. Thats 840 years (40 x 21) of woodpeckers flying around and one poor pix at a time when the forests were shrinking; not like today.
b) In Cuba no birds photographed from 1948 to at least '87 in a much smaller area than in the SE US. This is 800 years of woodpeckers known to be flying around in Cuba and NO PIX,,ever and perhaps counting.
c) The Luneau video was reviewed by videographers, submitted by them and it is approved by the AR BRC. There has and will be no reversal.
d) The Pearl video supports what is seen in the Luneau video and that AR BRC and many others were right on the Luneau video showing an IBWO.
If you get past D, I will post e to k so you might recall actual facts instead of relying on opinions of what is possible.
tks SFTV
a) Only a few US IBWOS were shot and only one was photographed ( the photo is very poor) from 1910 to 1931. Yet at least 40 existed on average each year. Thats 840 years (40 x 21) of woodpeckers flying around and one poor pix at a time when the forests were shrinking; not like today.
I don't know how many were shot during that period and neither do you. Same with how many photos were actually taken. There was certainly relatively little interest in the bird then compared to now, and relatively few people had cameras and/or were trying to get photos. There were no video cameras, no automatic cameras, no million dollar search budgets. It wasn't called "The Grail Bird" then and there wasn't the glory and big $ in getting a photo. With a handful of birds left in the Singer tract they could take all the photos they wanted, so your basic point doesn't hold much water.
b) In Cuba no birds photographed from 1948 to at least '87 in a much smaller area than in the SE US. This is 800 years of woodpeckers known to be flying around in Cuba and NO PIX,,ever and perhaps counting.
Check your math. That's 39 years, not 800. See my above answer. A report in '87 doesn't make it a fact, as we know from this whole fiasco.
c) The Luneau video was reviewed by videographers, submitted by them and it is approved by the AR BRC. There has and will be no reversal.
The "no reversal" is your opinion. The AR BRC approval doesn't make it so or there wouldn't be this big controversy. Smart people commonly make bad mistakes they wish they could take back. I'd be willing to bet they'd make a different decision today if they had it to do over again.
d) The Pearl video supports what is seen in the Luneau video and that AR BRC and many others were right on the Luneau video showing an IBWO.
That is your reality shared by very few outside a small community. A blurry video of some bird following a blurry video of a bird of undetermined species does little to support your cause.
Lets wrap this up per CTs guidance. Facts please. The birds in both videos have wing beat Hz and are large woodpeckers.
Did the math for you the first time. The units used are population x years (pop years). Average 20 pop in Cuba times ` 40 years = 800.
Until the AR BRC reverses it decision the bird existed Officially in 2004 or until you find a Pileated doing 7.5 Hz ~ 4 secs post take off. We have been waiting for this magical tape of a common species for 4 years. Up until now, no one can find a PIWO like the Luneau video as far as Hz and other characteristics. You can cry all you want but AR has factually accepted the bird, turning blue with rhetoric doesn’t reverse that.
Are the following numbers substantially wrong?
A1)There is one poor pix known of one individual US IBWO from 1900 to 1934. 40 x 34 = 1360 pop years extant = pix of one bird known.
A2) Pranty accepted as do many the 9 people who saw and produced feathers from a 1967-69 birds. 1934 to 67, Fl pop avg. 43 x 4 =172
B) Cuba reports by Jackson and other ornithologists, who also found sign that they reported as surely IBWO, are widely accepted as true. Does anyone have any knowledge the birds were not there and have peer reviewed articles as the Cuba ‘87 reports do saying they were there?
39 x 20 = 780 pop years or more and no pix.
Suumary: in ~ 2300 population years there was one known accepted pix whent he birds were extant per many reasonable people.
c) AR has spoken. Unless you have any factual proof of a PIWO, a common bird, looking/flapping like the IBWO in that tape, flapping gums will not help.
d) Blurry video analyzed by the leaders in wing beat HZ have factually stated the Pearl bird is not a PIWO or as some claimed a kingfisher(??). Videos even blurry ones are saturated with facts. You cannot deny that the video shows a wing beat Hz that is too high for a PIWO. Can you or anyone produce a PIWO in level flight with that wing beat Hz? Facts please…url.
Summary in the last ten years with an estimated ~ 50 birds for 500 population years we have one accepted video and a few suggestive videos (Pearl, Choctawhatchee).
That’s a recent ratio of 1 -500 compared to the 20th century ratio per above of 1 in 2300. Nothing earth shattering here if facts are used. The rate is going up....your better camera hyothesis has some grip.
Good day.
SFTV
SFTV,
Unless you have any factual proof of a PIWO, a common bird, looking/flapping like the IBWO in that tape, flapping gums will not help.
Unless you have any factual proof of a single IBWO, flapping gums will not help.
You haven't made your case, and you're not going to do it by statistics. Especially ones where you use the "fact" that there currently 50 living birds to support your stats about the lack of photos.
SFTV, made the case well. Your complaint that the estimate of 50 birds today indicates you think the number is too high.
If the est. number goes down probabilities dictate that a bird will be that much more difficult to photo today as exactly as many have asserted.
Your only complaint actually damages your main point!!! Please give us more.
John
John,
If the number of recent birds is zero, the number of good, legitimate recent photographs would be zero. That is much more certain than the number of photos that would be expected if the population were near zero. This (no good photos) was predicted by skeptics (Tom Nelson) several years ago and that is now the case. If you think my logic is faulty let's each predict the results of the next five years and see who is closer: my estimate of the number of good IBWO photos that will be obtained in the next five years is zero. Plus or minus zero. Obviously there are a number of teams and individuals out there who expected to get good photographic confirmation, predicted they would, and haven't. You may not think that's signifant, but I think it's fair to say that most people closely following this story do.
Again, this debate will not be settled in favor of believers by statistics alone or quoting selected experts who support a given point of view. There are nearly always experts on both sides, and the middle, of major issues.
Time and the mounting weak evidence (especially a hoax photo or two) without solid, verifiable evidence is slowly eroding claims of probable IBWO: bark scaling, groove marks, sightings, audio encounters or interpretations of blurry photos. As it should.
"All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
I think we all recognize by now that Tom Nelson is a lunatic more so than a skeptic. Check out his blog if you have any doubt.
Nelson may be a lunatic (I have no opinion on that matter), but its the role of competing ideas that are put forth that is most important, not the source of those ideas. We are again at a stalemate over whether there are a very few IBWO's left (but perhaps slightly more than was true 20+ years ago) or there are none left.
Time only will inform which of these two competing ideas are correct. Patience is a virtue.
Please let no one reasonable on either side and not being paid (this leaves lobbyists from MN out) fall for this charade that only frame filling pictures are an acceptable data set, evidence or proof.
There are all types of acceptable evidence and all researchers should not be lulled into a trap by paid skeptics and their underlings that whip our backs for getting only that killer shot. This while they collect a check for directing us this way and that with their asses at the computer.
Take field notes, record, kents, look for the roost, look for feathers, devise better methods, carry a camera and it will all work out. Do not rush biological systems especially when the subject species has become wary with non-stochastic hunting pressure.
Listen to actual field workers only, not lobbyists or artists (there are no IBWOs in offices its true). The bird is wary. The Singer like birds as far as behavior are gone, swamped out by the panmixing of the fragmented demes left after the destruction of the forests. FL populations became wary in 1890 the Singer pop. was fragmented as that process was occurring.
Do not fall into the skeptics trap..."please bring me a pix" while they smoke their cigar or publish another book. Sheridan succumbed. Pearl researchers put all energy into the pixel chase and collectively choose to not write about several interesting sightings. The sightings are now scientifically damaged; or efficiently lost. The Ivory-billed suffers from this self-perpetuated competition for a pix that forces science to become a photo contest.
Note for example above the typical skeptic way of not addressing the FACT that pics have historically been very rare for this species, that no pics of a common species the PIWO match the Lunaea or Pearl videos. No vids of PIWO doing what is pictured in the two subject vids exist yet that lack of video is rarely discussed, only lack of video counts when it deals with IBWO not PIWO.
Then they try to make us take the leap that no pics means extinction; while all other data sets are left unexplained.
Whoever is paying you bags isn't getting their moneys worth.
No one reasonable who takes the time to see ALL the evidence and visits the field with someone knowledgeable would declare this species extinct.
Pls ignore the skeptics points, even as I was unable ,,,as we say in LA "if you wrestle with pigs you get dirty and the hog has fun".
tks
SFTV
Man am I ever having fun getting paid bags of money for being a skeptic!
Your charge is rather amusing considering "Believers" HAVE profited (books and speaking engagements for example.)
People can be a sincere Believer or a sincere Skeptic without anyone paying them anything. So knock off the paid lobbyist stuff. It's as silly as calling Believers "Earth First Terrorists" because I'm angry and frustrated.
If you know the bird is there, find it and prove it to the people who make the decisions, then what the skeptics say won't matter. If you can't prove your case that will speak for itself. Some would argue it already has.
Finally, please don't call the skeptics lobbyists without at least telling me who I should see about my check.
Do you have any pertinent points, facts or any evidence on why a PIWO can't be found BY ANYONE to flap like the two subject vids?
Why are you avoiding discussing the evidence? Assumed a skeptic would be a deep thinker, skepticism being based on actual articulated facts is an important part of the process.
So far the hypthesis seems to be no pix = extinction. Sorry I am skeptical of your thesis....or is it only certain assertions that need no firm basis in history or potentiality. Numerous spp. including the IBWO have evaded the slow human for decades.
Is it just boring or immaterial to you that top VIDEO and THE TOP WING BEAT FREQUENCY experts say thats not a PIWO in one video or the other?
These are not just any experts they are the best. Regardless any birder can see that the Pearl tapes are indeed a bit perplexing for anything commonly encountered.
Do you personnaly have any evidence of PIWOs doing what is in the videos? How many PIWOs have you seen in flight? can you tell us about the wing Hz?
Is there any BEKI or PIWO that fits the bird in the Pearl vid? Or would you rather just ignore that tape to preserve preconceived ideas?
Do you think with the drastically different aspect ratios, weights, wing surface area/weight ratio an IBWO flaps slower or faster than a PIWO and why?
Its fine being a skeptic, please share your data: any actual field data, response of PIWO to play backs with DKs, frequency of ducks wings producing DKs in the Choctawhatchee, roost holes that are shaped like IBWOs and clustered but you have pixs of a PIWO making these oddly shaped holes.
Are you aware that these videos were taken where there were multiple prexisting claims of sightings by several people?
And listen, I can't read the prior post for you. It doesn't call every skeptic a lobbyist or paid. There are parts in there whether you are paid, a bum or somewhere in between.
I am truly sorry you are not getting paid......after your answers to the actual pertinent questions you might be picked up by a strip mining firm, lumber firm or Exxon.
good luck
SFTV
I hereby claim the right to forego replying point by point to the above and just call the person an idiot.
They are obviously not a birder and know nothing about how a competent birder would go about recording a sighting or how a report would be assessed.
I hereby claim the right to point out that no one will take a sighting or report seriously--which is sad, really, considering how much science, including ornithology, continues to advance based on observational data. I further assert that a quality birder may not, in fact, be the best qualified individual to assess the technical features of a video. (As a birder myself and not particularly knowledgable of video artifacts and other problems, I just shrug my shoulders and say, yeah, maybe it was what some folks say it was...and maybe not).
How many photos of Bendire's Thrashers or Pine Warblers or American Robins or Acadian Flycatchers are there from 1890-1940?
All hoaxes are dreadful and very damaging to genuine research. I am a big supporter of Ivory-bill research and I feel sorry for all of the genuine researchers out there. I sincerely hope that the continuation of the ivory-bill story is carried out with honesty and integrity.
It is annoying that the ibwo.net forum is so fuzzy, "warm feeling" and "happy-clapping." Any controversies are swept under carpet and scrutiny of evidence is not allowed. We need a forum where we can discuss evidence etc. in a straight forward and open-spirited manner without having to apologize if we would like the scientific method to be applied.
The ONLY reason the research forum exists is to lure in unknowing researchers who may have found significant data and get to them before anyone else. When someone with substantial material shows up then the administrators get the material and are forwarding it to someone like Cornell. Interestingly when these people post there their posts vanish. They are duping all of their followers. This is all fact. Not suspicion. They have been doing this now for at least two years and I have seen at least a half dozen new posters come in with important data and then the posts disappear and when I private message the people they tell me that either "F" or "D" has asked them not to post further and to forward the info to them. They are sneaky bastards. And this is why they do not want any bickering or negativity there because it may scare off new people with new information.
This is how fangsheath came to be able to search on private hunting land in Louisiana by intercepting a new poster who coincidentally doesn't post anymore because he was asked not to.
And to add to that they do solicit "donations" and I am unaware of them being a legal "non-profit" by status, nor do I suspect that any appropriate taxes have been paid. All of which should be public record.
Please do not ask questions triggered uplink if you haven't answered any. We are in tune with the anons skeptic training book on how to obfuscate when cornered. True skeptics engage....if you want the title of skeptic earn it, its more that a word, it comes with some responsibility.
Do you have any new field data?
Do you have any PIWOs that supports the main skeptical dogma that the Luneau video and Pearl video are kingfishers or PIWOs?
Tks... on your question.
>>>How many photos of Bendire's Thrashers or Pine Warblers or American Robins or Acadian Flycatchers are there from 1890-1940?<<<<
There are thousands of specimens, field reports and photos of those spp. from those decades. A single book has a picture of several hundred individuals of these species. Robins for example were often poisoned and piled up in ag fields in FL in the early 20th century.
I worked at the Academy of Natural Sciences and visited various collections; held Great Auks, IBWOs and Bendire's Thrasher in my hand. I assure you there are orders of magnitude more specimens of Bendires thrashers and pixs of them in various books/collections to prove your nuanced point is wrong.
See you also avoided including up until '69 when the bird surely existed in FL and 1987 where the IBWO was extant.
Do you seriously believe that if the IBWO was alive today it would be a walk up bird to get a picture of?
How many months have you spent in SE swamps searching for this bird or any bird since the Kulivan sighting? Where did you search? What were your IB methods? Results?
Have you read the actual literature on this spp.? If you do you will see how wariness generally spread east to west.
Tanner probably studied the least wary pair on earth of the 36 to 42 + (MS seems to have had 12 birds in 1940 missed by Tanner) on earth at the time.
Do you think grad students study the most wary pair when the least will do? He studied the pair that stayed put...by definition.
tks
SFTV
First, I don't concur with the sentiments expressed above re: the research forum (and not just because I'm a member over there), and further you are treading on (if not over) the line of the sorts of attacks I don't want as a part of this experiment; please respect that.
Personally, I have no doubt about the sincerity fang and Don have in their efforts on behalf of IBWO, and there are many reasons why particular posts may 'vanish' from their site. I don't happen to agree with everything they do in running that site, but I understand the background and reasons why they choose to do it, and that is certainly their choice to make.
It's probably way too late to say, 'can't we all just get along...' but still....
I also disagree with the accusations of inappropriate management of IBWO.net.
I have seen plenty of "leads" appear that have remained without deletion, and I am exceedingly doubtful the management has any ties with organized groups like Cornell.
Why does IBWO.net have to be yet another great debate center, when there are places like this and BirdForum for such purposes?
Moreover, groups lacking tax exempt status can certainlly ask for donations; the only consequence is that the donor does not get a tax deduction. No big deal. As a private citizen, I can donate up to $12,000 (per 2008 law) to an individual without tax consequences either for myself or for the recipient.
My God...where has all this paranoia and resentment come from? I am a casual contributor there myself and my biggest complaint is that not enough "fluff" gets deleted...but hey, it's innocuous.
From the comment, "We need a forum where we can discuss evidence etc. in a straight forward and open-spirited manner without having to apologize if we would like the scientific method to be applied."
The problem with the scientific method is that it begins with a hypothesis and proceeds with collecting data to analyze. Although I'm sympathetic towards the IBWOs survival, the strongest "data" to date are, in my estimation, the observational reports. Aside from these, the videos, photos, sound recordings, and bark removal data offer very little traction for applying the scientific method. Most commentators do not understand the scientific method any better than they can apply it. And that's okay. There's certainly much to discuss.
Lol. Disagree all you wish. If they delete more fluff there wouldn't be anything left. As it is now days can go by with nothing of substance being posted.
I cannot see how it would be to a disadvantage to allow discussion, even some critical, and just delete the malicious posts.
But no, they will delete even polite posts if they lean towards any disagreement. And how can that be an advantage to any forward discussion of anything?
No one has offered any explanation that explains that. Instead it is just a couple of followers who get mad if you say anything dispariging(sp) about them.
But in the final analysis it IS a PRIVATE forum and one can either choose or choose not to participate.
It is still annoying.
Oh and regarding the solicitation of money. It may not be illegal. But wouldn't you agree that there is a certain unethical-ness about asking for money to run a site that misrepresents why it is there? It isn't crossing the line here because it is the truth. They have an agenda that is carried out and ask for money without openly saying what that agenda is. And they will have you believe their agenda is pure and to provide an open "safe" place for people to post. But people cannot post because they delete post after post. They also edit post after post. And that is crossing the line. So hide your head in the sand and defend them all you wish, but I speak the truth.
It costs money to run the sort of site they have... asking for freely-offered contributions is pretty commonplace. If you read their guidelines/bylaws (as you are s'posed to do) before joining, they spell out fairly clearly what sort of posting is allowed -- if you don't accept those guidelines, don't join.
Obviously, you've had an unhappy experience there, but don't claim a monopoly on the 'truth.'
There's no point in getting bogged down here, on the researchers forum,
and at some point I'll begin deleting posts if it keeps up.
Have a question. Can anyone tell me if they are hearing double knocks at all in US, Canada areas outside the SE or if in the SE in specific areas that have no IBWOs? If yes what was the species and circumstances?
thanks greatly
John
I like the IBWO researchers' forum. Where else would I get a laugh like this:
Since I expressed a pretty strong opinion about “mystery bird #2” (see post #1141, above), in fairness let me say that there are contrary viewpoints. It has been suggested, for example, that the object is not a bird at all, but a squirrel.
mendacity over information aside, these people are harmless and can brighten up a dull day.
Try stomaching Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Tom Nelsen...though these fellows would never waiver in their opinions.
Its shocking the lack of due diligence the panel of experts did on this piece of alleged evidence.
A few friends were cautioned years ago immediately after Steve Sheridan's elaborate internet depiction showed up portraying in tremendous detail paintings of his strange IBWO sightings.
Without going into detail many field marks were a fabrication of the detail that could be expected to be seen, especially when you consider his age in ’78.
There were alleged contemporary notes but to my present knowledge these were never scanned and shown publicly. Regardless even with some ancient notes by a possibly precocious teenager, it was an obvious fabrication of childhood memories.
Verbally the great weighting of a small lighter spot in the plumage being pivotally important as evidence but the rationalization of other obvious mistakes in the painting being of no consequence were unsettling in their uneven treatment by Sheridan. His palpable anger at his report being ignored by many was telling as it should up in his self-serving apology.
Bewildered at the moment and remain so that the experts did not vet anything this guy brought in, from his choir book to his get one free donut coupon at WaWa.
He did have some old letters that if they were important should be verified. They are not of course important as evidence of what was actually seen. Even if the letter story is genuine they would now only verify that a fraudster was able to write a bit and lick a stamp. Perhaps a big accomplishment for a small fraudster, admittedly.
The letter to Roger Tory Peterson and others, if it actually happened, about a strange and nearly unbelievable backyard bird, eating ants no less does show something.
Its shows the classy RTP who was able to encourage someone via a return letter for more evidence as he kept an open mind even though we all know, as he, that it was odds on a PIWO. Sheridan as much as you hurt the IBWO cause you hurt RTP's memory and that is unacceptable.
How different is today's field book author and coat tail hangers, grasping tightly for a publication they thought would stop the sightings? Neither of which have spent any substantial time, capital or encouragement and even less helping out in the field.
One of them of course spending time studying captive Pileateds but never releasing his findings except in some nuanced manner. Seriously what tail hanger has ever announced his own blunder and that the coat itself is moth ridden?
Of course then came the sightings by an ornithologist who though not able to water color, said with others the species may persist in FL!!!
I doubt RTP would ever post a useless rant like this …..no way, instead he would of surely been looking for this bird, as a leader would, while submitting a Victorian Age field report upon success. And that would be game over.
A bird in the hand will someday be better than the two turkeys, one with a brush.
tks
PD
Try stomaching Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Tom Nelsen...though these fellows would never waiver in their opinions.
According to his site Tom Nelson believed Cornell had found the bird, then changed his mind after hearing the evidence was weak and looking at Cornell's paper. That is changing an opinion as new facts are brought to light. Trying to smear him now is not going to bring the Ivory-bill back from extinction.
Skeptics were once "the lunatic fringe," as Bill Pulliam put it way back when. Times change.
Yes, do give Tom his due on the IBWO. Events have shown that his level of skepticism was warranted.
Time will tell if that will be true with his skepticism of global warming but I wouldn't bet on him being right on this one. Lots of images prove the earth is getting warmer and they don't need to be analyzed at the pixel level.
>>>Yes, do give Tom his due on the IBWO. Events have shown that his level of skepticism was warranted. <<<
Am skeptical that you have taken any pictures of any exceedingly rare forest bird yourself...or have any experience in the matter and if equipped and potty trained for weeks couldn't get pix of a Swainson's Warbler in 2 months. Excluding a Tortuga drip.
DR Anon.
Dr. Anon says: skeptical that you have taken any pictures of any exceedingly rare forest bird yourself..
Well no I haven't. But unlike the "rediscovery team", I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Which means that, unlike them, I may not set back ornithology a number of decades.
CLO has made many after the discovery mistakes, has been exceedingly parochial, and condescending of others work,etc.
Regardless the 2005 paper with ~ 14 authors, many not of CLO pedigree, stands.
This to be expected after only two articles, representing meager actual research and cherry picking of frames have failed miserably. These authors/birders/medical personnel as can be seen in the recent Sheridan crime had no business portraying themselves as able to come close to telling what was in the Luneau video.
Indeed soon after, the FL "IBWO is possibly Extant" paper came out, a solid admirable, work with multiple complex data sets. Additional evidence flows from at least 4 other locations.
The IBWO is officially extant and is on the ES List and is not extinct no matter how many arm chair searchers, net surfers, and inexperienced Ansel Adams say it is.
Also while you will never be exposed to skeeters, snakes and such...........do be careful of that cheap hotel TV clicker..............high fecal coliform level evidently from "scientists" of your ilk researching there.
good day
Anon at 12:00 said "a solid admirable, work with multiple complex data sets."
multiple complex data sets are what you need when you don't have a bird or when birds are "rediscovered" by what are ostensibly, non-birders.
keep on believin...
Anon at 12 PM says "The IBWO is officially extant..."
The fact that humans believe something, even if the majority of humans believe something, does not make it so. Your use of the adverb "officially" shows what shaky ground you are on. When is the last time you believed an "official"? Or were you somehow referring to the officious nature of recent IBWO evidence?
Will not ask how you know that motel TV "clickers" have high fecal coliform but can assure you I have spent far more time in the field than you ever could.
I'm going to close this open thread down at this point and will start another one anew tomorrow, just to keep things fresh.
Post a Comment