Friday, April 25, 2014
-- Flights... of Fancy --
------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, just some videos I've lumped together (essentially, meaning I've had a wee bit too much free time on my hands this week...):
The famous Rhein video of an Imperial Woodpecker (Mexico) showing it taking flight around the 1:12 and 1:20 timepoints:
A couple of clips showing a Pileated Woodpecker in flight:
And a couple of clips of Pintails in flight (the species often historically compared to an Ivory-bill in flight):
I don't know all the specifications of these clips in terms of film speed or any de-interlacing, so wouldn't read too much into the perceived speed of the flights... but am more interested simply in the style or giss of the flight patterns (wingbeat speed, as a topic, is actually covered more fully in this old Bill Pulliam post: http://bbill.blogspot.com/2011/11/woodpecker-wingbeats-revisited.html).
The Luneau Arkansas video, by the way, is here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2005/06/02/1114103.DC1/1114103S1.mov
and a couple of Mike Collins' Pearl videos as well, here:
http://ftp.aip.org/epaps/journ_acoust_soc/E-JASMAN-129-024103/jasa_movie5.mp4
http://ftp.aip.org/epaps/journ_acoust_soc/E-JASMAN-129-024103/jasa_movie6.mp4
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This CT post has some nice clips that show the general wing beat points made by many.
The pseudo skeptics have never presented any reasons, believable nuances and surely no comprehensive explanation of why the woodpeckers in these putative IB clips are flying at 1) 30 mph plus with 2) a steady and high wing beat frequency 3) no to minimal wing binding . Any one of these 3 data sets is inconsistent with PIWO………to have all 3 against a PIWO would be impossible or close, according to all technical papers on flight dynamics and avian physiology.
One must wonder if they regret conceding the AR bird was even a Picidae, this eventually leading to even more unforeseen, by them, Hz problems with calling this a normal PIWO.
They seemed to have smartened up and avoided discussing the LA Pearl as far as taxa. Although they immediately stamped kingfisher on this animal. It’s a long-winged bird with a large white trailing edge, suggestion of dorsal stripes, and flight characteristics absurdly alien to kingfisher. Perhaps they meant Ringed Kingfisher, LOL.
Curious why you too CT have avoided direct questions to you on what the LA flyunder tape could or might be? We aren’t picky or demanding of extensive study…..if the pseudoskeptics can call it a kingfisher in seconds, all without even asking for copies of the exact video----then after years you and some of these pseudoes might have a list of candidates from the 10,400 species on earth.
And these rules for volunteers at a restaurant —resulting in rejected, passed or origin unknown decisions---made by bird record committee standards are OK for listing sanity ----but it’s not science. Analyzing low quality tapes of flying birds is too time consuming for BRCs with stacks of pending records but not for Tobalske types---they tend to find a lot of information in these hundreds of frames because they know their discipline.
Yes we know its blurry, theres no head and not much tail shown but guess what…. it surely did have a head and tail and it does show the body and wings from frame to frame to frame etc.
Importantly it’s a video—so it shows a moving animal and many FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS that can be compared to any other species. Effectively you have hundreds of low quality pictures in sequence of a decent sized bird, a flying bird, not too far away. You even have a nice shadow to use against it being an IB.
So if we promise not to laugh as hard as we did at the suggestion of belted kingfisher…….. in honesty we will likely just scratch our heads……then chuckle.
Good birdin’
FAV
Jesus.
This idiot FAV is still claiming IBWOS?
Post a Comment