THE REVENGE OF MR. GUPPY!!!
Here at BINAC we love Mr. Guppy aka William Smith because he's so much fun. Who else could write masterful prose such as this:
***
Then there is a very small percentage of people who frequent the internet who are intelligent, who are looking for a quick way to transmit intelligent information and dip into the this sick and mentally deranged pool that is known as the worl wide web.You decide where you fit.Our society is crumbling quickly.Our society's health is crumbling quickly.Our society is becoming obese, sick, and stupid.
***
That is Mr. Guppy at his finest. Now, when we last left Mr. Guppy, he had taken his ball and gone home because people on Bird Forum had the audacity to question the photo that he posted on his web site. Now, there are a lot of IBWO "True Believers" on Bird Forum, and if your sightings start getting ripped by them, you are in deep trouble.
So here's the deal. We here at BINAC are getting tired of this delusional clown. Mr. Guppy, it's time for you to put up or shut up. Show us the original photo you claim is of an IBWO. Show us the photos you took immediately before and after the photo you posted on your web site. Explain to us why the bird is in an orange tree. Explain to us why there is a house (or some other manmade object) in the background of your photo. Explain to us why the bird in your photo doesn't have any eyes or feet. Explain to us why the bird in your photo looks like it is...well...not a live bird. That would be a good start.
Why is this guy still on our radar screen? Because he has either taken a nearly-perfect photo of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, or the whole thing is a hoax. There's no in-between. You can say what you want about the evidence offered by Cornell and Mike Collins, but neither of them are putting stuffed birds into trees and taking photos of them. As the debate rages on as to whether the IBWO exists -- and if so, how many still fly, and where, and what can be done to save them -- it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. So let's find out, once and for all, whether William Smith is the wheat or the chaff.
Mr. Guppy, if you want to state your case, this is your your chance. There are no BirdForum moderators here. Fire away.
This ought to be fun.
6 comments:
Mr. Guppy may be certifiable, and his photo a joke, but he does hit one actual point. There indeed are many more recent, credible, convincing sightings of the Ivorybill than are generally publically known. I am not refering to casual bigfootish reports; I am refering to good descriptions by knowledgeable outdoorsmen and women, profesional wildlife biologists and lands managers, and the like. These are not vague rumors, either. I personally have names, dates, locations, descriptions, even phone numbers in some cases. One becomes privy to this information not be being a rabid "true believer," but by being a sincere, honest, trustworthy, and open-minded person who connects with the right circles. And especially by being someone who will swear on a stack of whatever you hold sacred not to reveal this information to the general public, especially not the names or locations. Only a tiny fraction of these sightings is ever revealed in public. Why is this? I can mention three names (all of which I will probably misspell): Agey, Heinzman, and Lowry. Their experiences established the rule: Talk about seeing an Ivorybill, lose your repuation. Few have risked it since.
The fact remains to this day that birders are far less likely to venure into possible Ivorybill habitat than are hunters, fishermen, and game wardens. Sightings of the (terrifyingly few) remaining individuals of the species will almost all be by them, not "us." And almost to a man they see nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by letting the world know about what they encounter. Recent events have only hardened this feeling, not softened it.
Not sure I totally agree with this first comment, but let's assume it is correct...that's all the more reason to call Mr. Guppy out on the carpet for his photo. He is essentially poisoning the well.
That's why I think it's probably in the best interests of everyone -- True Believers and Skeptics -- to ferret out what is really going on here.
In fact, a conspiracy theorist could argue that the Guppy photo causes more harm to the TBs than to the skeptics. As an example:
When people debate the Fielding Lewis photos, the "True Believers" usually say something like "Why would anyone come up with a fake photo of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker? What would they have to gain?" Well, in the year 2006, we have the Guppy photo of an IBWO that appears, to many people, to be fake. An outright hoax.
If the Guppy photo is fake, why would anyone take the trouble to do such a thing? Why is the important question here...of course, maybe Mr. Guppy will come here and defend his photo, but I doubt it.
There indeed are many more recent, credible, convincing sightings of Aliens than are generally publically known. I am not refering to casual ivory-billish reports; I am refering to good descriptions by knowledgeable outdoorsmen and women, profesional wildlife biologists and lands managers, and the like. These are not vague rumors, either. I personally have names, dates, locations, descriptions, even phone numbers in some cases. One becomes privy to this information not be being a rabid "true believer," but by being a sincere, honest, trustworthy, and open-minded person who connects with the right circles. And especially by being someone who will swear on a stack of whatever you hold sacred not to reveal this information to the general public, especially not the names or locations. Only a tiny fraction of these sightings is ever revealed in public.
Oh dear, BINAC has committed the ultimate sin in Guppyland. Asking him to even talk about his photo, much less provide an actual clear copy of it, has generally earned the petitioner absolute and instant shunning in Guppie-dom...
What does anyone have to gain by pulling an IBWO hoax? The same thing they get from pulling a crop circle hoax. I'm not sure what it is, but obviously there is some motivation there for a certain type of person.
I agree. One Guppy does more damage single-handedly to the honest quest for IBWO documentation and conservation than all the skeptics could possibly do collectively. Ironic, since he claims to have nothing but the best interest of the bird at heart. Pllllllllt to that, I say. And to all those who declare "just leave them alone, they've done fine without us his far" I say "Are you out of your freekin' minds???" A population that probably numbers in the SINGLE DIGITS at best, if it is even non-zero, is hardly "doing fine!"
I see Mr. Anonymous number two has eloquently demonstrated the truth of Mr. Anonymous number one's thesis about why one would keep mum about an IBWO sighting. Thank you.
AWWWWWWWWGH! GREAT!
Can't we just ignored this man called the "Magicman"? He probably lives in a trailor home down by the river and has no idea what he is doing or saying. Ignore him like a panhandler or the guy on the corner giving loud sermons about how the world is approaching the end and we must all repent.
Ignore him and move on.
Let's talk about the questionable Laughing Gull in Montrose instead. I have some doubts after seeing Geof Williamson's photos on IBET.
Let's talk about the ABA and how much they suck or the World Cup Soccer matches. (GO Australia!)
Right now a young sweet college girl reported on Bird Forum she saw a IBWO on a telephone pole. She made the biggest sin by reporting and now her name will be beaten to death by all the meatballs on Bird Forum or Tom Nelson's blog. This is really sad that you cannot even mention a IBWO in a crowd because the mere mention of IBWO sends birders into a frenzy and soon a riot takes place. Birders running all over tipping over scopes and burning guide books in protest.
Nah --
I have other things to worry about this summer than a IBWO. My little League team I am coaching is 3-4 and I am at lost to what happen to my hitters. That to me is more important than a guy called "Mr. Guppy"
Post a Comment