——————————---------------—
“‘Hope’ is the thing with feathers, that perches in the soul” — Emily Dickinson
One million and counting.... The Google stats I get for this blog seem a bit whacked, but nonetheless, perhaps worth marking the occasion: looks like this month (possibly even this week) the blog will cross over 1 million hits since its inception, almost 19 years ago. That's a LOT of anal-compulsiveness! (just kidding ;))
Especially grateful to the intrepid folks who have stuck it out since the very start, through thick-and-thin, through college or kids or divorces or hernia operations, hip replacements, COVID, and a zillion blurry pictures and unresolved debates; through 4 Presidents and 6 Speakers of the House, through the rise of Taylor Swift and pickleball, and the fall of George Santos! Through Seinfeld re-runs, Bitcoin debacles, the mystery of Malaysian airliner MH370, the deaths of Steve Jobs and Robin Williams and near-lynching of Mike Pence, and of course all the USFWS hemming-and-hawing.... yeah, we been through some thangs… zaniness, vitriol, hopes-raised/hopes-dashed, confusion, intrigue... and, well, more-to-come!…. 😮
Waaaay too many people have made contributions to the discussion over the years for me to try to cite them, but will at least acknowledge 3 names whose work/writings have been especially important to me: Bill Pulliam (deceased), Chuck Hunter, Chris Haney (perhaps not coincidentally, Chuck and Chris were both acquaintances of Bill). Thanks also to those who've quietly helped behind-the-scenes with miscellaneous things over the years, and who need to remain anonymous (you know who you are). And, whether we agree or disagree on specific matters, thanks finally to all who sincerely try to understand the plight of this iconic species and inspire others to do so as well!
Meanwhile, early on, an experienced British birder labelled those of us who pushed the “Ivory-bills persist” storyline, “stringers,” for endlessly stringing people along — and that was in the early years; he must reeeeally be super annoyed with me by now, all these years later! Keep on reading, and I guess I’ll keep on annoying ;))
——————-----------------—————
ADDENDUM 4/2:
Dwight Norris has a longish summary post for his IBWO Facebook group musing about where we’re at after 80 years of Ivory-bill searching:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7671707159517314/
…he also muses a bit about the Saluda, SC. claims, including a notion that it could be a case of the principal on-site reporter involved basically doing a dissertation on human gullibility — that was actually a thought I'd had early on, but after investigation and for too many reasons to explain, dropped from consideration (...IF that actually turned out to be true, I hope his professor/advisor at least awards him an "E" for Effort).
Anyway, I suspect Dwight’s post might stir a flurry of thoughts/responses, so maybe take a gander at it and any followup.
------------------------------
Addendum, to the Addendum:
At the moment there are 55 comments to Dwight’s post, causing him to further elaborate now with a 2nd separate posting:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/179784035376368/permalink/7675402589147771/
…not sure how long this might drag out and I had hoped not to spend more time on what has been one of the most embarrassing episodes of many embarrassing episodes in the IBWO saga (…so I won't say much here, but might continue to link to discussions elsewhere) …btw, John Williams’ FB page, if you care to visit, is here:
https://www.facebook.com/john.d.williams.503
…and includes links to a couple of his prior non-IBWO blogs:
https://motionhealth.blogspot.com
https://bestdriver.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------
13 comments:
Unethical to write about Williams without him being allowed to be there. This is basic. The posting is sophomoric anyway. Genetics producing a "friendly" individual? Please. Birds are taught by their parents.
You may not be able to access the group anymore, but it is not unethical for Norris to write about the Saluda events and give his opinion on them. The Saluda situation has received a lot of discussion in multiple Ivory Bill related sites,so it is only natural it would pop up on his site. There is no ethical problem with him discussing the subject on his site as well, regardless of who he has excluded from the site in the past.
(For other readers)-- Mike D has used highly insulting language (including vulgarity) directed at me in the past, so excuse me if I have some fun with him. He is not a player in the IB world by any means. Mike, what's your professional background? And, um, really think that wing flash is a turkey vulture? Do you hear me laughing? And Norris is including writing about Williams' professionalism as much or more than the evidence, so yes it is unethical, but I guess you do not operate that way. I take the time to reveal this for other readers who might wonder what is going on after-the-fact (the Saluda evidence was mostly 2022-2023). There are young professional biologists and conservationists who deserve to know. The Saluda evidence was real. Read the relevant comment string.
You do realize that Turkey vultures have been clearly photographed in South Carolina on multiple occasions in the last 90 years? The odds that a blurry, partial bird 'wing flash' image taken in South Carolina in 2022 is that of a Turkey vulture is much greater than the odds of it being an Ivory Bill.
Here is Erin Taylor's final response to Dwight Norris' continued comments on Williams. Three parts because of length restrictions. Again, this is for young professionals who wonder what is going on with the Saluda case, what is the most basic explanation-- "What a low-level way to write. Readers, look at Dwight's first paragraph, and the title. And on a site where Williams is not allowed, after he stood up to bullies (during a crucial time when USFW was deciding) when Dwight was not even on his own site. I'm not "irate". I'm actually laughing. I'm standing up to a bully-- you Dwight, who has false pride going that shows in your insulting language. That's why you won't back off. So for the sake of your 6000+ readers and your claim of being "THE" IBWO site, here is some info about the Saluda case-- 1. the IBWO does not choose to show itself to people of certain personalities. This is an absurd thought. So, yes, the person who owns the Saluda data is, to be kind because he deals with insulting language too, unstable. This should and has NOTHING to do with the quality of the data.
A person who understands how to vet data knows this. Williams has a BS Marine Biology, MA Secondary Science, PhD non-accredited Euro-model with Bill Devall as mentor (look him up) in Natural Science (tree animism related to modern perceptions of motion, 10 year study and 55,000 word dissertation), trained NMFS marine mammal and bird observer and technical fish ID, 400+ bird list, environmental education 1985-2000, secondary science classroom teaching 2000-2021, taught scientific method as part of the curriculum for years, retired with pension. He's been in countless natural settings and understands the limits of field observations. He's been in the IBWO world since having a sighting in 2010. Everyone in this community knows him, he helps a number of researchers, all his work is volunteer, and he has lately contributed to headcam research and the Saluda data and, post-Saluda, sound research, making a finding that IBWOs have kents often around 587 Hz (paper to come out soon). The Saluda data? To address your comments from experts-- the wingflash video is obviously from underneath, looking up to a high point in a tree, showing ventral, not showing the dorsal white saddle. If one looks on the Wikipedia entry for IBWO, there is a rotating image that shows the white saddle being visible from actually a fairly narrow angle even with a dorsal view. Readers, take the time to go look; thus you will see that Hunter's critique of not seeing a white saddle is not valid.
The wingflash obviously shows INDIVIDUAL FEATHERS, and the curved ENDS of the feathers are visible. There is no black trailing edge. Readers, just view it for yourselves. It's not a perfect match to the lab Capainolo images, it does compare favorably with the early Cornell pics, but it's not a match at all to PIWO. The bird also wing flares (the back wing is visible at one point) like the Rhein video. Turkey vulture? Can you hear me laughing? And, the bill-in-hole VIDEO shows correct color, shape, dimension, motion for the bill, including hints of an eye and crest, and additionally two background birds that both have fieldmarks and behavior for IBWO. One background bird shows complex behavior including two flights showing white trailing edges of wings. John Fitzpatrick noted this at the MI Zoom presentation (if we are naming names). Both background birds show crests. I could go on. Unfortunately, through no fault of Williams', the paper this was all presented in and submitted to USFW was withdrawn by the owner and is not readable anywhere on the web. The original idea that Dwight presented, that the data-owner "should have done more" is a common one used by critics, but is not logical, instead being after-the-fact. In fact, the data-owner provided EVEN BETTER video evidence directly to USFW. Williams has seen this, asked for this to be published and would have worked on it. And, the data-owner provided audio evidence that is still readable on BioRxiv (published as anonymous-no location but data-owner revealed Saluda. To discount the Saluda "fiasco" a critic would have to discount ALL the evidence, video and audio. This includes-- bill-in-hole, white saddle in tree (Williams did not want this included, it's not great, but including it was a condition), wingflash, double and single knock series (matched at SPECTROGRAM level to other existing DKs and SKs from Mennill and Cornell data), kents (so what if there are background noises from a house-- early Project Coyote evidence that Guy Luneau bases his book on is from near a house and there are other good reports from near homes)-- the focus should be on the kent sounds which match on SPECTROGRAMS with kents from basically all other putative IBWO kent recordings), and woka-wokas that have no possibility of being faked other than from Allen-Kellogg, but have a rain noise background and lack the noise of the large A-K recording machine. If any of the multiple lines of evidence for Saluda cannot be discounted, it obviously reinforces the other data. The Saluda data was and is real, although the video is not easily defendible at this point having been withdrawn. This should be the last word, but of course will not be."
Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?
Erin Taylor is likely to be Fred Virrazzi, Virrazzi has been very critical of the Saluda evidence in the past.
ummm, MikeD, I'm quite certain "Erin Taylor" is NOT Fred (or did you mean to type "unlikely" instead of "likely"??? ("Erin" is writing in defense of the Saluda claims)
I'm pretty sure 'she' is Virrazzi myself. It is not unusual for the different personalities to contradict one another on issues that are secondary to him. No way to be certain of course.
Nawww! definitely think Fred would be mortified that you think it's him! (LOL)
LOL, he wouldn't care
Post a Comment