Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

[salar53]

Gullible

is anyone aware of another critically endangered species where people claim to be able to see them whenever they want but those people are not working with the relevant organisations to study or protect the birds?

If these people are lying then that would make them reprehensible people playing on the hopes and wishes of the well-intentioned but gullible. You can decide whether it is the case or not here.

I might be well-intentioned - after all I wanted to take your money.
However, you weren't gullible enough to accept the little wager!

 

[Edward woodwood]

However, you weren't gullible enough to accept the little wager!

thanks

Tim

 

[draycotebirding]

Are you sure of your facts? Do you seriously want me to traipse (to use one of Choupique's words) through twelve thousand eight hundred posts to prove you right?

This should cut down the time
http://www.birdforum.net/search.php?searchid=3452884

 

[salar53]

Chance

thanks

Tim

Don't mention it, Timothy.

You turned down the bet because you thought there was a chance that definitive proof could yet be produced. And you might have saved yourself ten thousand pounds into the bargain.

Why, I think you're like Choupique1 - an interesting believer!

 

[rob stoff]

Are you sure of your facts? Do you seriously want me to traipse (to use one of Choupique's words) through twelve thousand eight hundred posts to prove you right?

start at post 9173 on page 367 (wasn't hard to find funnily enough)

Rob

 

[rob stoff]

Who made stuff up? Is that another way to say,"Liar"? Any proof of "making stuff up"?
Professor Hill has photos and video - they aren't definitive, of course. We would all love definite proof.

And Timeshadowed. I agree. Bring back Choupique1.

is Hill calling people liars when he says conclusive proof is needed?

Yes, if I'm saying people made stuff up I'm calling them liars, that is, quite simply what you are if you make stuff up. I'm of the view that there are more idiots involved than liars though there do seem to be several of the latter too. The faked photo has been shown to be a faked photo beyond any reasonable doubt, ergo the person who tried to pass it off as a real IBWO is a liar. If believers thought the photo was of a real bird they would be citing it as 'proof', I don't see anyone doing that, not even the photographer!

Rob

 

[rob stoff]

Don't mention it, Timothy.

You turned down the bet because you thought there was a chance that definitive proof could yet be produced. And you might have saved yourself ten thousand pounds into the bargain.

Why, I think you're like Choupique1 - an interesting believer!

missed the details of this wager, it wasn't a bet between someone who couldn't possibly lose (can't prove a negative etc) and someone who could (but very probably wouldn't) was it?

Rob

 

[salar53]

Liar

is Hill calling people liars when he says conclusive proof is needed?

Yes, if I'm saying people made stuff up I'm calling them liars, that is, quite simply what you are if you make stuff up. I'm of the view that there are more idiots involved than liars though there do seem to be several of the latter too. The faked photo has been shown to be a faked photo beyond any reasonable doubt, ergo the person who tried to pass it off as a real IBWO is a liar. If believers thought the photo was of a real bird they would be citing it as 'proof', I don't see anyone doing that, not even the photographer!

Rob

Of course Professor Hill isn't calling anyone a liar.
He is simply stating that the evidence he has gathered to date does not constitute definite proof.
He like everyone else would love that series of conclusive photographs.

 

[rob stoff]

Of course Professor Hill isn't calling anyone a liar.
He is simply stating that the evidence he has gathered to date does not constitute definite proof.
He like everyone else would love that series of conclusive photographs.

so the detailed 'evidence' provided by Tyler Hicks is not considered definitive and can effectively be ignored, Hill clearly doesn't have any faith in it or he wouldn't feel the need, and it is spelled out as a need rather than a desire, for photographic proof. That's as close as you can get to calling Hicks a liar withour ending up in court

Rob

 

[salar53]

Choupique was right!

start at post 9173 on page 367 (wasn't hard to find funnily enough)

Rob

Thanks for doing the research for me!

What's the big deal?

Choupique1 answers, "Yep". That is, he agrees he saw the birds. I think I remember now that he said somewhere else that he only got a glimpse of them.

He then goes on to say what you and I and Professor Hill are all agreed on: that definitive "proof" is lacking.

So Choupique1, as well as being highly entertaining and much maligned, was also right, and a man ahead of his time!

Thread: Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) View Single Post
Monday 29th January 2007, 22:23 #9174
choupique1
Registered User






Join Date: May 2005
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 519 Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Allwood
yeah, yeah, yeah

wasn't long ago (actually just before Hill went public) that you told me you'd been down there and seen them... (the florida 'birds')

unfortunately Hill produced a lot less than some were anticipating

remember?

Tim

Yep.. I thought they had more "proof" than they produced..... Took a couple of your countrymen out last week.... excellent gunners.....brought me some mighty nice scotch too.....


choupique1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to choupique1
Find More Posts by choupique1
Add choupique1 to Your Buddy List
View this user's Gallery
View this user's Gallery Profile

 

[Edward woodwood]

he told me he went to see Hill's birds in the few days prior to the announcement. In full expectation that Hill had located a population of clearly visible birds. I played him for the fool he was, bigged him up some, gave him enough rope and he did the rest. When Hill revealed slightly, er, less than some people were expecting, he then went on the defensive and dodged it because back then i still kept the Private Messages he sent me and he knew it - cos i told him. That's when he went a bit quiet.

straight up lies. no more and no less. Yet you will believe what you prefer.

and anyone remember his thinly veiled threats to have his SAS mates 'take' Ilya 'out'?

 

[salar53]

Saved!

Let's see now. If the bird is photographed within a year (and I did say if), I will have paid out nothing. You will double that (how mightily generous of you).
So you will pay out precisely nothing for the photograph of the bird which you have informed all and sundry is extinct.
What sort of a bet is that?
Twenty to one is still a steal for an extinct bird.

So it's still my five hundred pounds to your ten thousand over five years.

Rob Stoff, this is the bet I tried to strike with Tim.
He didn't take me on.

Another way to look at it: he might have saved me five hundred pounds!

 

[lockbreeze926]

To the Magic Guy : haven't heard from you yet regarding my offer to see IBWO somewhere within the Green Swamp in January.

I'll certainly be at Colt Creek - that any good? Lake Louisa? Western Lake Apopka, like around Ferndale?

 

[Imaginos]

Rob Stoff, this is the bet I tried to strike with Tim.
He didn't take me on.

Another way to look at it: he might have saved me five hundred pounds!

I remember this discussion, it struck me that this post was the culmination of several attempts to wriggle out of making any sort of wager by insisting on increasingly outrageous terms - £10,000? because anyone is going to make that sort of bet, even on a sure thing (unless they are minted or professional gamblers of course). Rather a low point for this thread (and considering some of the posts that is really saying something). I think it was less Tim 'not taking' you on it, but just getting bored.

 

[MMinNY]

There is no basis for those assertions; the logic supporting them is tortured in the extreme, but you have set up some truly remarkable false dichotomies, and in a very few words too. If something's not "definitive" it can "effectively be ignored." If Hill recognizes that the birding/ornithological world requires photographic proof, then he doesn't have any confidence in field observations. If he doesn't have any confidence in the field observations, he must think Tyler Hicks is a liar. I congratulate you!

I've corresponded with Geoff Hill and have attended one of his public talks. He's never expressed anything but confidence in Tyler Hicks. And he remains convinced that there are IBWOs in the Choctawhatchee. He has "faith" in his own observations and those of his team members. He also understands that many people (you, for example) won't be convinced until incontrovertible proof (as opposed to evidence) is obtained.

His statements about getting a photograph reflect a recognition of the post-Luneau reality; he would have been pilloried if he'd been any less cautious. He has been anyway, at least in some quarters, but that's another matter.

so the detailed 'evidence' provided by Tyler Hicks is not considered definitive and can effectively be ignored, Hill clearly doesn't have any faith in it or he wouldn't feel the need, and it is spelled out as a need rather than a desire, for photographic proof. That's as close as you can get to calling Hicks a liar withour ending up in court

Rob

 

[salar53]

Outrageous?

I remember this discussion, it struck me that this post was the culmination of several attempts to wriggle out of making any sort of wager by insisting on increasingly outrageous terms - £10,000? because anyone is going to make that sort of bet, even on a sure thing (unless they are minted or professional gamblers of course). Rather a low point for this thread (and considering some of the posts that is really saying something). I think it was less Tim 'not taking' you on it, but just getting bored.

Outrageous terms? Are you being serious? Do you know anything remotely basic about gambling odds?

It was I who was taunted and goaded into a bet. You know, by those suggesting that the IBWO was extinct.

Extinct? And I was only offered a bet at pathetic even money.

So I thought I would test this extinction assertion mathematically. I pointed out that if the IBWO was truly extinct, I should be offered truly astronomical odds. Not an even money bet.

So I reckoned that twenty to one in the event of the IBWO being extinct was "miserly".

But even so, to test extinction in gambling terms, I offered Tim my five hundred pounds to his ten thousand that conclusive proof would be obtained within five years.

He declined.

So Tim at any rate must think there is a chance yet that the killer photograph might be obtained.
And if that wasn't one of Dave's logical fallacies, I'd be pleased about that!

 

[Piltdownwoman]

First, although I understand Rob's point, I don't agree that Hill is effectively calling Hicks a liar. I think Hill is absolutely convinced that Hicks is correct. But all that means is that Hill is gullible, not that Hicks is correct.

[Geoff Hill] has "faith" in his own observations and those of his team members. He also understands that many people (you, for example) won't be convinced until incontrovertible proof (as opposed to evidence) is obtained.
...he would have been pilloried if he'd been any less cautious

Of course he has faith, that's the only thing propping up his little pile of weakly suggestive evidence. But as for caution, he alternates between somewhat cautious statements, like that he understands his evidence will not convince everyone; but after that he descends into faith-based propaganda - that he's sure there are up to a dozen pairs of IBWO, and that he will have the definitive photograph any day now...

And I don't see any conflict between holding out some small hope that the birds are still there, and thinking that the evidence so far is nearly worthless crap with only one reasonable interpretation. That doesn't mean the birds are not there, just that there is really no reason to think they are, and when Hill says they are he is deluded. One point Sibley made in his blog - it's to the point where even if an IBWO is confirmed tomorrow (in Alabama, say), that doesn't confirm any of the previous evidence, which will still look like junk.

It's as if Hill is telling us that his team is on the verge of flipping 100 heads in a row, and he knows this because yesterday they got up to 17 in a row, although it happened during the lunch break so they didn't catch it on videotape, but he has complete confidence in the report. And people on this forum say they know it's true because some anonymous guy who claims to be from Florida says he got a photograph of his 100th head in a row last year. You have to understand that pressing those claims at this point will generate a bit of scoffing and deriding.

 

[Edward woodwood]

But even so, to test extinction in gambling terms, I offered Tim my five hundred pounds to his ten thousand that conclusive proof would be obtained within five years.

what iwanted was to see some cash for OBC sharpish not in five years. Anyone can bet daft money over five years.

So, same amounts but you pay £100 a year over five years to OBC every May, starting 2008?

That way OBC gets some cash and May is close enough for us all to keep tabs on

So it's the same bet but with the realisitic position of someone actually paying something out.

 

[salar53]

Deal?

what iwanted was to see some cash for OBC sharpish not in five years. Anyone can bet daft money over five years.

So, same amounts but you pay £100 a year over five years to OBC every May, starting 2008?

That way OBC gets some cash and May is close enough for us all to keep tabs on

So it's the same bet but with the realisitic position of someone actually paying something out.

So I can still lose five hundred pounds, but now at twenty to one the most you can lose is down to two thousand pounds? You've certainly got a good financial adviser!

Here's a one year bet. On conclusive proof.

33-1

My £100 to your £3300.

 

[curunir]

Wagers

Are these tax deductible contributions? This would significantly change the real odds of the bet depending on your tax bracket and the respective tax laws of the country.