next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-1B177E8B-F172-4978-9111-1F024F571927 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If it's not, judging from all the research I'd say Stephen needs to find a h= obby! :) >=20 > =C3=B4=C2=BF=C3=B4 > ~=20 Sent from Ian's iPhone This message contains 100% recycled electrons. > On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:10 PM, Larry Scacchetti <larrybird4134@gmail.com> wr= ote: >=20 > I can't tell if this is a joke post or not.=20 >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 >> On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:47 PM, Stephen Shaw <srshaw@Dal.Ca> wrote: >>=20 >> Hi Dave and others, >> At risk of flogging a dead horse, I=E2=80=99ll take up cudgels with Dave=E2= =80=99s call that "35=C2=B0 from image horizontal when measured [see below].= .. means almost nothing". In the BBC interview, this UK guy has a big rig c= amera and appears to be an experienced photographer. Anyone like this who h= as to take a snap decision for a quick bird photo is going to try to hold th= e rig horizontal, and my guess is that anyone competent could hold it level t= o within =C2=B12=C2=B0 of horizontal, even me. Photographers may wish to co= mment. >>=20 >> How about 'when measured=E2=80=99? I imported a JPEG copy of the woodpec= ker-weasel image into the very useful image analysis program ImageJ*, and wi= th the angle-measurer tool measured the shadow angle from the vertical at 47= .17=C2=B0 (=C2=B1 1.5% coefficient of variation, n=3D7); my eyeball guess ha= d been 50=C2=B0, and the very low CV% means that the wing shadow, clear and a= lmost linear, made it possible to make very reliable repeat measurements. T= he sun=E2=80=99s implied elevation then is (90 minus this), or 42.83=C2=B0, n= ot 35=C2=B0. =20 >> I thought it would take at least a degree in Astronomy (not me) and a loa= d of work to estimate where the sun actually was on the day in question in t= hat part of UK, but this turns out to be relatively easy.=20 >>=20 >> For the calculation you first need the coordinates of the site from one o= f the several latitude-longitude calculators available on the web, for insta= nce:=20 >> www.latlong.net/ =20 >> The result is latitude 51.562254, longitude 0.218605, for Hornchurch, E. L= ondon, UK. >>=20 >> Several sun height calculators are also available, for instance:=20 >> keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224682277 =20 >> Besides the latitude and longitude, the date needs to be specified, which= is the Monday the day before the BBC post, therefore 1 March 2015; zero ref= erence, 0 GMT; then the time (not yet daylight saving time) which is only gi= ven in the BBC post as 'afternoon=E2=80=99. My guess for this would be ~3P= M, but maybe it could have been as early as 2PM. >>=20 >> The results returned by the calculator for sun elevation (altitude measur= ed from earth horizontal) using these 1 March 2015 values for Hornchurch are= >> 2PM: 26.47=C2=B0 >> 3PM: 20.78=C2=B0 >> 4PM: 13.47=C2=B0 >> The maximum height of the sun on that day occurs near 12:30PM, but is sti= ll only 30.74=C2=B0 >>=20 >> Conclusion: The measured estimate of the sun=E2=80=99s elevation from th= e JPEG (42.83=C2=B0), is therefore too high by 16.4=C2=B0 at 2PM, and 22.4=C2= =B0 at 3PM, to have been taken on 1 March 2015. I don=E2=80=99t believe tha= t an experienced photographer would be holding his camera at anywhere near e= ither of these angles to make the situation right. And if that were true, t= he loaded woodpecker would actually be heading upwards by 22=C2=B0 (3PM), pr= obably close to stall angle. In fact according to the report, the woodpecke= r was heading towards a crash landing, therefore downwards. >>=20 >> Another way to look at it using the Keisan calculator is to ask on what f= irst date/time the sun elevation would equal close to the value measured fro= m the image, 42.83=C2=B0. The answer is several weeks later than 1 March, on= 23 May 2015 (if 3PM) and on 19 April (if photo was taken at 2PM). >>=20 >> This seems like pretty good evidence that this photo could not have been s= hot on or even close to 1 March 2015. If the =E2=80=98Monday=E2=80=99 in q= uestion were even earlier in the year, the sun would be lower and the angle f= it would be even worse. Among other salient points, Randy=E2=80=99s is par= ticularly persuasive, about the relative weight of the weasel with solid bon= es versus the woodpecker=E2=80=99s hollow bones implying that the bird could= not fly carrying such a large load.=20 >>=20 >> The only powerful point of view that needs to be considered is that of th= e weasel itself, as relayed in Dave=E2=80=99s original post, which in case y= ou missed it was: >>=20 >> >> But as, is often the case, the passenger felt he was taken. >> http://newsthump.com/2015/03/03/weasel-shocked-by-hidden-charges-after-ch= eap-woodpecker-flight/ >> DW<< >>=20 >> Steve (Hfx) >>=20 >> *Google to ImageJ, select the site and download the version for your oper= ating system. It is a very useful, powerful but easy to use program, develo= ped and maintained to the present with US govt funds and so is available for= free. Highly recommended. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:31 AM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>= wrote: >>> Hi Steve & All, >>> I think there is no reason to suppose it not to be genuine. >>>=20 >>> The angle of shadow cast by the wing, more like 35o from the image hor= izontal when measured, means almost nothing because this angle would be depe= ndent upon the angle of the camera relative to true horizontal. One would ex= pect a loaded bird to fly with maximum angle of attack so as to avoid an uns= cheduled pancake landing. >>>=20 >>> The foreleg, being small, against the bird, perhaps somewhat buried in= short feathers, with an edge of sparse fur to cast the shadow, the shadow t= race possibly dimmed by light reflected from the neck and just barely at a g= reater angle from the image horizontal than the wing shadow would be expecte= d to cast faint or no detectable shadow. Even the shadow distal to the foot i= s very faint. >>>=20 >>> This is in addition to the complaint registered by the passenger which= adds authenticity. Why would a non-existent passenger complain about being t= reated unfairily ?. >>>=20 >>> Time will tell. >>>=20 >>> Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Shaw" <srshaw@Dal.Ca> >>> To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:57 AM >>> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a wo= odpecker's back >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Hi Keith, >>>> I could only find one other shot, a low power pan with poor focus which= therefore doesn=E2=80=99t resolve anything. Do you have a URL for other sho= ts? >>>>=20 >>>> If you look at the prominent bright area on the side of the bird=E2=80=99= s throat which abruptly turns into a dark shadow on the breast just forward o= f the wing, this must have been shot in bright sunlight (in mid afternoon in= February, apparently). =46rom the angle of the shadow (caused by occlusio= n by the bend of the extended wing), sunlight would have to have been fallin= g from the right, top, about 50 degrees off vertical, and roughly in the pla= ne of the photo. I=E2=80=99m not sure, but am surprised that the sun would= appear so high in a February afternoon in UK. For a 50=C2=B0 angle of illu= mination, it=E2=80=99s then surprising that the front edge of the weasel=E2=80= =99s left leg doesn=E2=80=99t appear to cast any shadow on the woodpecker. A= lso, if you magnify the image on screen and focus on the bases of the left p= rimaries, the clear regular pattern of alternating dark-light bands on the d= istal part of the primary feathers gives way to a rotated square pattern nea= r the bases that doesn=E2=80=99t blend in and looks artificial. Next to thi= s is an out of focus area that is surprising given the excellent focus on th= e ends of the primaries, which is where the most motion-blur would be expect= ed if that=E2=80=99s what=E2=80=99s generating the poor resolution on the pr= oximal wing. >>>>=20 >>>> You can over-analyze images like this, and probably none of this allows= us to tell for sure if it is genuine or not, but in aggregate it still look= s very dubious to me. I also didn=E2=80=99t find his pitch particularly con= vincing =E2=80=94 he really went out specifically to look for this species o= f woodpecker? >>>> Steve >>>>=20 >>>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Keith Lowe <mythos25@live.com> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> There are multiple shots of it. Some articles referred to it as "baby"= >>>>> weasel. Here is a video of him explaining the circumstances. >>>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31722410 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns= .ca] >>>>> On Behalf Of Walt Norris >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:28 PM >>>>> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca >>>>> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a >>>>> woodpecker's back >>>>>=20 >>>>> As a photographer I would say this is a hoax . >>>>>=20 >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Walt >>>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns= .ca] >>>>> On Behalf Of Stephen Shaw >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:52 PM >>>>> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca >>>>> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a >>>>> woodpecker's back >>>>>=20 >>>>> Too good to be true? As with the recent tufty eared squirrel, I'd sus= pect >>>>> some sort of photo-fraud. >>>>> The British green woodpecker is quite a large bird, about 12.5 inches l= ong >>>>> according to Peterson et al, and while a least weasel should be about 7= -8" >>>>> long, this one looks more like 6". >>>>> Has the weasel been photoshopped in? It doesn't look to be gripping t= he >>>>> neck of the bird and indenting the feathers there with any intensity, a= s you >>>>> might suspect it would be doing in the circumstances. >>>>> Steve >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on= >>>>> behalf of Burkhard Plache [burkhardplache@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:04 PM >>>>> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca >>>>> Subject: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a >>>>> woodpecker's back >>>>>=20 >>>>> In case you are interested to see >>>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31711446 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9221 - Release Date: 03/03/= 15 >>=20 --Apple-Mail-1B177E8B-F172-4978-9111-1F024F571927 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D= utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div>If it's not, judging from all the rese= arch I'd say Stephen needs to find a hobby! :)<br><br><blockquote type=3D"ci= te" style=3D"font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 19px; -webkit-te= xt-size-adjust: auto;"><div><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-f= amily: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br></span></div><div><span class=3D"App= le-style-span" style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">=C3=B4=C2=BF= =C3=B4</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family: '.HelveticaNeueInterface= -Regular'; font-size: 13pt;"> ~ </span></div></blockquote><div>Sen= t from Ian's iPhone<div>This message contains 100% recycled electrons.</div>= </div></div><div><br>On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:10 PM, Larry Scacchetti <<a hr= ef=3D"mailto:larrybird4134@gmail.com">larrybird4134@gmail.com</a>> wrote:= <br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><meta http-equiv=3D"content-typ= e" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><div>I can't tell if this is a jok= e post or not. <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Mar 7, 2015= , at 11:47 PM, Stephen Shaw <<a href=3D"mailto:srshaw@Dal.Ca">srshaw@Dal.= Ca</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-12= 52"> <div>Hi Dave and others,</div> <div>At risk of flogging a dead horse, I=E2=80=99ll take up cudgels with Dav= e=E2=80=99s call that "35=C2=B0 from image horizontal when measured [see bel= ow]... means almost nothing". In the BBC interview, this UK guy has a b= ig rig camera and appears to be an experienced photographer. Anyone like this who has to take a snap decision for a quick bird pho= to is going to try to hold the rig horizontal, and my guess is that anyone c= ompetent could hold it level to within =C2=B12=C2=B0 of horizontal, even me.= Photographers may wish to comment.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>How about 'when measured=E2=80=99? I imported a JPEG copy of the w= oodpecker-weasel image into the very useful image analysis program ImageJ*, a= nd with the angle-measurer tool measured the shadow angle from the vertical a= t 47.17=C2=B0 (=C2=B1 1.5% coefficient of variation, n=3D7); my eyeball guess had been 50=C2=B0, and the very low CV% means that= the wing shadow, clear and almost linear, made it possible to make very rel= iable repeat measurements. The sun=E2=80=99s implied elevation then is= (90 minus this), or 42.83=C2=B0, not 35=C2=B0. </div> <div>I thought it would take at least a degree in Astronomy (not me) and a l= oad of work to estimate where the sun actually was on the day in question in= that part of UK, but this turns out to be relatively easy. </div> <div><br> </div> <div>For the calculation you first need the coordinates of the site from one= of the several latitude-longitude calculators available on the web, for ins= tance: </div> <div>www.latlong.net/ </d= iv> <div>The result is latitude 51.562254, longitude 0.218605, for Hornchurch, E= . London, UK.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Several sun height calculators are also available, for instance: <= /div> <div><a href=3D"http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224682277">keisan.casio= .com/exec/system/1224682277</a> </div> <div>Besides the latitude and longitude, the date needs to be specified, whi= ch is the Monday the day before the BBC post, therefore 1 March 2015; zero r= eference, 0 GMT; then the time (not yet daylight saving time) which is only g= iven in the BBC post as 'afternoon=E2=80=99. My guess for this would be ~3PM, but maybe it could have been as ear= ly as 2PM.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>The results returned by the calculator for sun elevation (altitude meas= ured from earth horizontal) using these 1 March 2015 values for Hornchurch a= re</div> <div>2PM: 26.47=C2=B0</div> <div>3PM: 20.78=C2=B0</div> <div>4PM: 13.47=C2=B0</div> <div>The maximum height of the sun on that day occurs near 12:30PM, but is s= till only 30.74=C2=B0</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Conclusion: The measured estimate of the sun=E2=80=99s elevation f= rom the JPEG (42.83=C2=B0), is therefore too high by 16.4=C2=B0 at 2PM, and 2= 2.4=C2=B0 at 3PM, to have been taken on 1 March 2015. I don=E2=80=99t b= elieve that an experienced photographer would be holding his camera at anywhere near either of these angles to make the situation right. = And if that were true, the loaded woodpecker would actually be heading upwar= ds by 22=C2=B0 (3PM), probably close to stall angle. In fact according= to the report, the woodpecker was heading towards a crash landing, therefore downwards.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Another way to look at it using the Keisan calculator is to ask on what= first date/time the sun elevation would equal close to the value measured f= rom the image, 42.83=C2=B0. The answer is several weeks later than 1 March, o= n 23 May 2015 (if 3PM) and on 19 April (if photo was taken at 2PM).</div> <div><br> </div> <div>This seems like pretty good evidence that this photo could not have bee= n shot on or even close to 1 March 2015. If the =E2=80=98Monday=E2=80= =99 in question were even earlier in the year, the sun would be lower and th= e angle fit would be even worse. Among other salient points, Randy=E2=80=99s is particularly persuasive, about the relative weig= ht of the weasel with solid bones versus the woodpecker=E2=80=99s hollow bon= es implying that the bird could not fly carrying such a large load. </d= iv> <div><br> </div> <div>The only powerful point of view that needs to be considered is that of t= he weasel itself, as relayed in Dave=E2=80=99s original post, which in case y= ou missed it was:</div> <div><br> </div> <div> <div>>> But as, is often the case, the passenger felt he was taken.</d= iv> <div><a href=3D"http://newsthump.com/2015/03/03/weasel-shocked-by-hidden-cha= rges-after-cheap-woodpecker-flight/">http://newsthump.com/2015/03/03/weasel-= shocked-by-hidden-charges-after-cheap-woodpecker-flight/</a><br> DW<<</div> </div> <div><br> </div> <div>Steve (Hfx)</div> <div><br> </div> <div>*Google to ImageJ, select the site and download the version for your op= erating system. It is a very useful, powerful but easy to use program,= developed and maintained to the present with US govt funds and so is availa= ble for free. Highly recommended.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>--------------------------------------------------</div> <div><br> </div> <div> <div>On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:31 AM, David & Alison Webster <<a href=3D"= mailto:dwebster@glinx.com">dwebster@glinx.com</a>> wrote:</div> <blockquote type=3D"cite">Hi Steve & All,<br> I think there is no reason to suppose it not to be genuine.<br> <br> The angle of shadow cast by the wing, more like 35o from the ima= ge horizontal when measured, means almost nothing because this angle would b= e dependent upon the angle of the camera relative to true horizontal. One wo= uld expect a loaded bird to fly with maximum angle of attack so as to avoid an unscheduled pancake landing.<br> <br> The foreleg, being small, against the bird, perhaps somewhat bur= ied in short feathers, with an edge of sparse fur to cast the shadow, the sh= adow trace possibly dimmed by light reflected from the neck and just barely a= t a greater angle from the image horizontal than the wing shadow would be expected to cast faint or no detectable shado= w. Even the shadow distal to the foot is very faint.<br> <br> This is in addition to the complaint registered by the passenger= which adds authenticity. Why would a non-existent passenger complain about b= eing treated unfairily ?.<br> <br> Time will tell.<br> <br> Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville<br> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Shaw" <<a href=3D= "mailto:srshaw@Dal.Ca">srshaw@Dal.Ca</a>><br> To: <<a href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</= a>><br> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:57 AM<br> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a woodpe= cker's back<br> <br> <br> <blockquote type=3D"cite">Hi Keith,<br> I could only find one other shot, a low power pan with poor focus which ther= efore doesn=E2=80=99t resolve anything. Do you have a URL for other shots?<b= r> <br> If you look at the prominent bright area on the side of the bird=E2=80=99s t= hroat which abruptly turns into a dark shadow on the breast just forward of t= he wing, this must have been shot in bright sunlight (in mid afternoon in Fe= bruary, apparently). =46rom the angle of the shadow (caused by occlusion by the bend of the extended wing), sunli= ght would have to have been falling from the right, top, about 50 degrees of= f vertical, and roughly in the plane of the photo. I=E2=80=99m n= ot sure, but am surprised that the sun would appear so high in a February afternoon in UK. For a 50=C2=B0 angle of illumi= nation, it=E2=80=99s then surprising that the front edge of the weasel=E2=80= =99s left leg doesn=E2=80=99t appear to cast any shadow on the woodpecker. &= nbsp;Also, if you magnify the image on screen and focus on the bases of the left primaries, the clear regular pattern of alternating dark-light b= ands on the distal part of the primary feathers gives way to a rotated squar= e pattern near the bases that doesn=E2=80=99t blend in and looks artificial.= Next to this is an out of focus area that is surprising given the excellent focus on the ends of the primaries, w= hich is where the most motion-blur would be expected if that=E2=80=99s what=E2= =80=99s generating the poor resolution on the proximal wing.<br> <br> You can over-analyze images like this, and probably none of this allows us t= o tell for sure if it is genuine or not, but in aggregate it still looks ver= y dubious to me. I also didn=E2=80=99t find his pitch particularly con= vincing =E2=80=94 he really went out specifically to look for this species of woodpecker?<br> Steve<br> <br> On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Keith Lowe <<a href=3D"mailto:mythos25@live.= com">mythos25@live.com</a>> wrote:<br> <br> <blockquote type=3D"cite">There are multiple shots of it. Some articles refe= rred to it as "baby"<br> weasel. Here is a video of him explaining the circumstances.<br> <a href=3D"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31722410">http://www.= bbc.com/news/science-environment-31722410</a><br> <br> <br> -----Original Message-----<br> From: <a href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebuc= to.ns.ca</a> [<a href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">mailto:nature= ns-owner@chebucto.ns.ca</a>]<br> On Behalf Of Walt Norris<br> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:28 PM<br> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<b= r> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a<br> woodpecker's back<br> <br> As a photographer I would say this is a hoax .<br> <br> Cheers,<br> Walt<br> <br> -----Original Message-----<br> From: <a href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebuc= to.ns.ca</a> [<a href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">mailto:nature= ns-owner@chebucto.ns.ca</a>]<br> On Behalf Of Stephen Shaw<br> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:52 PM<br> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<b= r> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a<br> woodpecker's back<br> <br> Too good to be true? As with the recent tufty eared squirrel, I'd susp= ect<br> some sort of photo-fraud.<br> The British green woodpecker is quite a large bird, about 12.5 inches long<b= r> according to Peterson et al, and while a least weasel should be about 7-8"<b= r> long, this one looks more like 6".<br> Has the weasel been photoshopped in? It doesn't look to be gripping th= e<br> neck of the bird and indenting the feathers there with any intensity, as you= <br> might suspect it would be doing in the circumstances.<br> Steve<br> ________________________________________<br> From: <a href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebuc= to.ns.ca</a> [<a href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owne= r@chebucto.ns.ca</a>] on<br> behalf of Burkhard Plache [<a href=3D"mailto:burkhardplache@gmail.com">burkh= ardplache@gmail.com</a>]<br> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:04 PM<br> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<b= r> Subject: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a<br> woodpecker's back<br> <br> In case you are interested to see<br> <a href=3D"http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31711446">http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-3= 1711446</a><br> <br> </blockquote> <br> <br> -----<br> No virus found in this message.<br> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9221 - Release Date: 03/03/15<br= > </blockquote> <br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div></blockquote></div></blockquote></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-1B177E8B-F172-4978-9111-1F024F571927--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects