==> THEblog devoted, since 2005, to news & commentary on the most iconic bird in American ornithology, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO)... and sometimes other schtuff [contact: cyberthrush@gmail.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT on the missing website, you were generous since you did not include the most likely reason, to an important educated segment of viewers, on why the pseudoskeptic site is not worth renewing. It would have only cost a few dollars to renew, so its not cost. This is the greatest mystery in conservation in decades. Shouldn't accurate sites be renewed and flawed, science or sites whither away?
That site, the Science Note and subsequent apprearances by "Note" authors Bevier and Sibley failed to convince any of the ~ 16 Science authors, none of the many public posters with a real name, none of the proponent AR RBC members and most importantly, no one of substance at the USFWS that the orignal abstract was wrong------the abstract stands --the IBWO Persists (2004). The USFWS determines what is or isn't an extant endangered species------not silly sites by amateurs that practice flawed freshman logic. Or blogs that want a specific thread to go on forever by picking up a defeated tag team of combatants from the bloody canvas. Sure you can say it was good battle for 7 years but its fairly clear that the words "IBWO Persists" were right for the AR video and by proxy the LA video.
The site was not renwed becuause it was ineffective bullocks.
Those that have learned about REAL video artifacts, GISS, subtle to obvious clues to correct bird ID, bird wing flap frequency, aspect ratio, surface area, Campephilus characteristics, general aerodynamics etc., have concluded that site's major points were fatally flawed.
Have you seen or heard any great independant defense of that site's points from anyone? It's been critizised on multiple sites and forums. I am excluding from being great defenses, the ephemeral apprearances by the non-independant perpetrators of that site. .
They retreated and disappeared quickly as they withered from repectful, basic and fundamental questions about their erroneous opinions.
Why are you still willy nilly, and for years a trailing indicator at best, for the major tool of wing beat Hz in respect to the subject ID of birds on the subject videos? Hz and bounding do not vary by entire deviations.
1 comment:
CT on the missing website, you were generous since you did not include the most likely reason, to an important educated segment of viewers, on why the pseudoskeptic site is not worth renewing. It would have only cost a few dollars to renew, so its not cost. This is the greatest mystery in conservation in decades. Shouldn't accurate sites be renewed and flawed, science or sites whither away?
That site, the Science Note and subsequent apprearances by "Note" authors Bevier and Sibley failed to convince any of the ~ 16 Science authors, none of the many public posters with a real name, none of the proponent AR RBC members and most importantly, no one of substance at the USFWS that the orignal abstract was wrong------the abstract stands --the IBWO Persists (2004). The USFWS determines what is or isn't an extant endangered species------not silly sites by amateurs that practice flawed freshman logic. Or blogs that want a specific thread to go on forever by picking up a defeated tag team of combatants from the bloody canvas. Sure you can say it was good battle for 7 years but its fairly clear that the words "IBWO Persists" were right for the AR video and by proxy the LA video.
The site was not renwed becuause it was ineffective bullocks.
Those that have learned about REAL video artifacts, GISS, subtle to obvious clues to correct bird ID, bird wing flap frequency, aspect ratio, surface area, Campephilus characteristics, general aerodynamics etc., have concluded that site's major points were fatally flawed.
Have you seen or heard any great independant defense of that site's points from anyone? It's been critizised on multiple sites and forums. I am excluding from being great defenses, the ephemeral apprearances by the non-independant perpetrators of that site. .
They retreated and disappeared quickly as they withered from repectful, basic and fundamental questions about their erroneous opinions.
Why are you still willy nilly, and for years a trailing indicator at best, for the major tool of wing beat Hz in respect to the subject ID of birds on the subject videos? Hz and bounding do not vary by entire deviations.
tks
Post a Comment