.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

IVORY-BILLS  LiVE???!  ...

=> THE blog devoted to news and commentary on the most iconic bird in American ornithology, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO)... and... sometimes other schtuff.

Web ivorybills.blogspot.com

"....The truth is out there."

-- Dr. Jerome Jackson, 2002 (... & Agent Fox Mulder)

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

-- Hamlet

"All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Tuesday, May 04, 2010


-- Deja Vu --


Once more for old time's sake
(one of Dave Nolin's videos; Pileated in flight):

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFPEAQe0qCk ]

Dave's other videos can be downloaded from here:

...and the Luneau video here:


And finally, I've previously reported on the computer simulation (animation) work grad student Jeff Wang had been doing to simulate Ivory-billed and Pileated Woodpeckers in the flight pattern of the Luneau video, but I never saw a final conclusion from that work, and only just now discovered the following article (from Jan. of this yr.) which, as I surmised, indicates the simulation work was simply inconclusive (surprise, surprise):


Well, was anyone besides me watching Letterman last night?

I'm wondering if some of his writers visited this place. Shoot, there were a whole bunch of shots at BP over the oil disaster, such as these from the "Top Ten List" about conversations "overheard in the BP London Office":

We've just received a note of thanks from the management of Toyota...

We've just received a note of thanks from Goldman Sachs...

And then crazy Jack Hannah (yeah, crazy like the foxes he sometimes brings on) shows up with some critters, including a pileated...

Probably just a coincidence, but...

Anyone wanting to post some vid cap links? I need to head to work...

Only thing I could critize was Letterman realizing he'd produced a classic with this one and his posturing betraying that fact... I'm inclined to cut him some slack; the show was that good.

And yes, I stared at the Luneau video in slo mo a number of times, and the only conclusion I came to was anyone who would say with certainty that it was pileated needs to borrow my 19" monitor. It's possible, but I'm inclined to think that was the real McCoy.
To identify a bird, it should have features consistent with the species and should not have features inconsistent with the species. It is indeed silly to say that the Luneau bird IS a Pileated when its wingbeat is inconsistent with the species even after alot of attempts to find a Pileated flying like the Luneau bird. Just because it ISN'T a Pileated doesn't mean it IS an Ivory-bill, however, since another alternative is to say we're not sure. I am especially resistant to a negative identification, where a bird's species is declared based on what it is not as opposed to what it is.

I guess that means I'm critical of everybody but at least Cornell could be right.
Yes, you're absolutely correct Emupilot. That's how birds are identified. And sometimes we have to say the identity is impossible to resolve or not proven.

As Concolor says it's possibly a PIWO (a brave statement) and you yourself Emu say you can't be sure. That's an entirely rational approach and one that a good birder would take.

The Luneau bird is unidentifiable and it always has been. If we are to then talk about probabilities, it's a moot point but interesting. My view is that an unidentified large campephilus is a PIWO not shown well enough to be positively identified. The Hz is irrelevant. It's refreshing to see two people who havew probably held an opposite view to mine for a while prepared to say that the Luneau bird is not a definite IBWO and can't be positivielt identified
And once again, Spatutail illustrates the sort of perceptual distortions that set up reasonably objective people to either act rudely or kowtow to pseudo-intellectual bullying tactics that lack any factual backup.

Spat, you demonstrated zero comprehension of what I said in my previous posts, and frankly your manipulations border on childish. You simply see things in absolute black-and-white and then project your reality onto others who don't share them. At least I don't; I'll give emupilot the dignity of speaking for himself (or herself, as the case may be).

I'm inclined to think the Luneau bid is an IBWO, and I think the HZ may be entirely relevant, your disvowel not withstanding. I simply don't know enough about the matter to speak with authority; it does seem to me, though that the rate of wingbeat is entirely relevant.
If you're "inclined to think", then that's not good enough. End of. Try putting that on a rarity submission accompanying only by an extremely poor quality video and see how far you get. If you then go on to say that it's also possible that it could be a PIWO, then you clearly have a bird that you can't identify. And you will also appear foolish and of questionable competence to the people judging your reports in future. Reputations are hard won and easily lost.

The bird is unidentified at best. And that is hardly seeing it in black-and-white.
Question to spat . . .

Why isn't it good enough?

Because you said so? Reasonable people offer evidence for their claims, and open-minded ones consider alternative evidence.

Once again you take a set of old clothes, stuff it full of straw, set it afire, and claim victory . . .

And then attempt, in Elmer Gantry fashion, to offer up a lecture...

Go read some elementary books on narcissism and denial . . . And quit trying to argue with somebody who learned to bet his life on what he learned . . .

And is still around to tell about it...
It's not good enough precisely because you said it was possible that the bird was a PIWO. (in the last paragraph of your first post)

So, instead of running down my percieved personality defects and posting abstruse references to Jack Hannah, Letterman, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, BP, Elmer Gantry and everything but how to identify a bird competently, why not read your own posts and see if they aren't a little narcissistic and 'in denial'

I'm not arguing with you: If you think it's a personal opinion, try checking a few journals or asking a few reputable birders for examples of quality rarity submissions. "I think it was" or "it's possible it was" won't be in there.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Older Posts ...Home