next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
dds authenticity. Why would a non-existent passenger c
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_1062_01D05987.ABEC46F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No joke. The woodpecker had every reason to be seriously annoyed.
DW
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Ian Woodman=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a =
woodpecker's back
If it's not, judging from all the research I'd say Stephen needs to =
find a hobby! :)
=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> wrote:
I can't tell if this is a joke post or not.=20
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:47 PM, Stephen Shaw <srshaw@Dal.Ca> wrote:
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 camera and appears to be an experienced =
photographer. Anyone like this who has to take a snap decision for a =
quick bird photo is going to try to hold the rig horizontal, and my =
guess is that anyone competent could hold it level to within =
=C2=B12=C2=B0 of horizontal, even me. Photographers may wish to =
comment.
How about 'when measured=E2=80=99? I imported a JPEG copy of the =
woodpecker-weasel image into the very useful image analysis program =
ImageJ*, and with 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 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 reliable repeat measurements. The sun=E2=80=99s implied elevation =
then is (90 minus this), or 42.83=C2=B0, not 35=C2=B0. =20
I thought it would take at least a degree in Astronomy (not me) =
and a load 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.=20
For the calculation you first need the coordinates of the site =
from one of the several latitude-longitude calculators available on the =
web, for instance:=20
www.latlong.net/ =20
The result is latitude 51.562254, longitude 0.218605, for =
Hornchurch, E. London, UK.
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 reference, 0 GMT; then the time (not yet daylight =
saving time) which is only given in the BBC post as 'afternoon=E2=80=99. =
My guess for this would be ~3PM, but maybe it could have been as early =
as 2PM.
The results returned by the calculator for sun elevation (altitude =
measured 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 still only 30.74=C2=B0
Conclusion: The measured estimate of the sun=E2=80=99s elevation =
from the 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 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 upwards 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.
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 from 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).
This seems like pretty good evidence that this photo could not =
have been 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 the angle fit would be even worse. Among other =
salient points, Randy=E2=80=99s is particularly persuasive, about the =
relative weight of the weasel with solid bones versus the =
woodpecker=E2=80=99s hollow bones implying that the bird could not fly =
carrying such a large load.=20
The only powerful point of view that needs to be considered is =
that of the weasel itself, as relayed in Dave=E2=80=99s original post, =
which in case you missed it was:
>> 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<<
Steve (Hfx)
*Google to ImageJ, select the site and download the version for =
your operating 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 available for free. Highly recommended.
--------------------------------------------------
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.
The angle of shadow cast by the wing, more like 35o from the =
image horizontal when measured, means almost nothing because this angle =
would be dependent upon the angle of the camera relative to true =
horizontal. One would expect a loaded bird to fly with maximum angle of =
attack so as to avoid an unscheduled pancake landing.
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 trace possibly dimmed by light reflected from the neck and =
just barely at a greater angle from the image horizontal than the wing =
shadow would be expected to cast faint or no detectable shadow. Even the =
shadow distal to the foot is very faint.
This is in addition to the complaint registered by the =
passenger which adds authenticity. Why would a non-existent passenger =
complain about being treated unfairily ?.
Time will tell.
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 woodpecker's back
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 shots?
If you look at the prominent bright area on the side of the =
bird=E2=80=99s throat which abruptly turns into a dark shadow on the =
breast just forward of the wing, this must have been shot in bright =
sunlight (in mid afternoon in February, apparently). From the angle of =
the shadow (caused by occlusion by the bend of the extended wing), =
sunlight would have to have been falling from the right, top, about 50 =
degrees off vertical, and roughly in the plane 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 illumination, =
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. =
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 =
bands on the distal part of the primary feathers gives way to a rotated =
square 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, which 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.
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 looks very dubious to me. I also didn=E2=80=99t find =
his pitch particularly convincing =E2=80=94 he really went out =
specifically to look for this species of woodpecker?
Steve
On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Keith Lowe <mythos25@live.com> =
wrote:
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
-----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
As a photographer I would say this is a hoax .
Cheers,
Walt
-----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
Too good to be true? As with the recent tufty eared =
squirrel, I'd suspect
some sort of photo-fraud.
The British green woodpecker is quite a large bird, about =
12.5 inches long
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 the
neck of the bird and indenting the feathers there with any =
intensity, as 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
In case you are interested to see
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31711446
-----
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9249 - Release Date: =
03/07/15
------=_NextPart_000_1062_01D05987.ABEC46F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3Dcontent-type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dauto bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>No joke. The woodpecker had every reason to be seriously =
annoyed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DW</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dcalicoangus@bell.net =
href=3D"mailto:calicoangus@bell.net">Ian=20
Woodman</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dnaturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, March 08, 2015 =
3:09=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NatureNS] BBC =
Article -=20
Weasel photographed riding on a woodpecker's back</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If it's not, judging from all the research I'd say Stephen needs =
to find=20
a hobby! :)<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: UICTFontTextStyleBody; FONT-SIZE: 19px; =
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto"=20
type=3D"cite">
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: 12px"=20
class=3DApple-style-span><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: 12px"=20
class=3DApple-style-span>=C3=B4=C2=BF=C3=B4</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: '.HelveticaNeueInterface-Regular'; FONT-SIZE: =
13pt"> ~ </SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Sent 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=20
=
href=3D"mailto:larrybird4134@gmail.com">larrybird4134@gmail.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. <BR><BR>Sent =
from my=20
iPhone</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:47 PM, Stephen Shaw <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:srshaw@Dal.Ca">srshaw@Dal.Ca</A>> =
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi Dave and others,</DIV>
<DIV>At risk of flogging a dead horse, I=E2=80=99ll take up =
cudgels with Dave=E2=80=99s=20
call that "35=C2=B0 from image horizontal when measured [see =
below]... means=20
almost nothing". In the BBC interview, this UK guy has a big =
rig=20
camera and appears to be an experienced photographer. Anyone =
like=20
this who has to take a snap decision for a quick bird photo is =
going to=20
try to hold the rig horizontal, and my guess is that anyone =
competent=20
could hold it level to within =C2=B12=C2=B0 of horizontal, even =
me.=20
Photographers may wish to comment.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>How about 'when measured=E2=80=99? I imported a JPEG =
copy of the=20
woodpecker-weasel image into the very useful image analysis =
program=20
ImageJ*, and with the angle-measurer tool measured the shadow =
angle from=20
the vertical at 47.17=C2=B0 (=C2=B1 1.5% coefficient of variation, =
n=3D7); my eyeball=20
guess had been 50=C2=B0, and the very low CV% means that the wing =
shadow, clear=20
and almost linear, made it possible to make very reliable repeat=20
measurements. The sun=E2=80=99s implied elevation then is =
(90 minus this),=20
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=20
load of work to estimate where the sun actually was on the day in =
question=20
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=20
one of the several latitude-longitude calculators available on the =
web,=20
for instance: </DIV>
<DIV><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.latlong.net/">www.latlong.net/</A> </DIV>
<DIV>The result is latitude 51.562254, longitude 0.218605, for =
Hornchurch,=20
E. London, UK.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Several sun height calculators are also available, for=20
instance: </DIV>
<DIV><A=20
=
href=3D"http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224682277">keisan.casio.com/=
exec/system/1224682277</A> =20
</DIV>
<DIV>Besides the latitude and longitude, the date needs to be =
specified,=20
which is the Monday the day before the BBC post, therefore 1 March =
2015;=20
zero reference, 0 GMT; then the time (not yet daylight saving =
time) which=20
is only given in the BBC post as 'afternoon=E2=80=99. My =
guess for this=20
would be ~3PM, but maybe it could have been as early as 2PM.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The results returned by the calculator for sun elevation =
(altitude=20
measured from earth horizontal) using these 1 March 2015 values =
for=20
Hornchurch are</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=20
still only 30.74=C2=B0</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Conclusion: The measured estimate of the sun=E2=80=99s =
elevation from=20
the JPEG (42.83=C2=B0), is therefore too high by 16.4=C2=B0 at =
2PM, and 22.4=C2=B0 at=20
3PM, to have been taken on 1 March 2015. I don=E2=80=99t =
believe that an=20
experienced photographer would be holding his camera at anywhere =
near=20
either of these angles to make the situation right. And if =
that were=20
true, the loaded woodpecker would actually be heading upwards by =
22=C2=B0=20
(3PM), probably close to stall angle. In fact according to =
the=20
report, the woodpecker was heading towards a crash landing, =
therefore=20
downwards.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Another way to look at it using the Keisan calculator is to =
ask on=20
what first date/time the sun elevation would equal close to the =
value=20
measured from the image, 42.83=C2=B0. The answer is several weeks =
later than 1=20
March, on 23 May 2015 (if 3PM) and on 19 April (if photo was taken =
at=20
2PM).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This seems like pretty good evidence that this photo could =
not have=20
been shot on or even close to 1 March 2015. If the =
=E2=80=98Monday=E2=80=99 in=20
question were even earlier in the year, the sun would be lower and =
the=20
angle fit would be even worse. Among other salient points, =
Randy=E2=80=99s=20
is particularly persuasive, about the relative weight of the =
weasel with=20
solid bones versus the woodpecker=E2=80=99s hollow bones implying =
that the bird=20
could not fly carrying such a large load. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The only powerful point of view that needs to be considered =
is that=20
of the weasel itself, as relayed in Dave=E2=80=99s original post, =
which in case=20
you missed it was:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>>> But as, is often the case, the passenger felt he was =
taken.</DIV>
<DIV><A=20
=
href=3D"http://newsthump.com/2015/03/03/weasel-shocked-by-hidden-charges-=
after-cheap-woodpecker-flight/">http://newsthump.com/2015/03/03/weasel-sh=
ocked-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=20
operating system. It is a very useful, powerful but easy to =
use=20
program, developed and maintained to the present with US govt =
funds and so=20
is available 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=20
href=3D"mailto:dwebster@glinx.com">dwebster@glinx.com</A>> =
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite">Hi Steve & All,<BR> I =
think there=20
is no reason to suppose it not to be =
genuine.<BR><BR> The=20
angle of shadow cast by the wing, more like 35o from the image=20
horizontal when measured, means almost nothing because this =
angle would=20
be dependent upon the angle of the camera relative to true =
horizontal.=20
One would expect a loaded bird to fly with maximum angle of =
attack so as=20
to avoid an unscheduled pancake landing.<BR><BR> The =
foreleg,=20
being small, against the bird, perhaps somewhat buried in short=20
feathers, with an edge of sparse fur to cast the shadow, the =
shadow=20
trace possibly dimmed by light reflected from the neck and just =
barely=20
at a greater angle from the image horizontal than the wing =
shadow would=20
be expected to cast faint or no detectable shadow. Even the =
shadow=20
distal to the foot is very faint.<BR><BR> This is in =
addition=20
to the complaint registered by the passenger which adds =
authenticity.=20
Why would a non-existent passenger complain about being treated=20
unfairily ?.<BR><BR> Time will tell.<BR><BR>Yt, Dave =
Webster,=20
Kentville<BR> ----- Original Message ----- From: =
"Stephen=20
Shaw" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:srshaw@Dal.Ca">srshaw@Dal.Ca</A>><BR>To:=20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A>><B=
R>Sent:=20
Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:57 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [NatureNS] BBC =
Article=20
- Weasel photographed riding on a woodpecker's back<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite">Hi Keith,<BR>I could only find one =
other shot,=20
a low power pan with poor focus which therefore =
doesn=E2=80=99t resolve=20
anything. Do you have a URL for other shots?<BR><BR>If you =
look at the=20
prominent bright area on the side of the bird=E2=80=99s throat =
which abruptly=20
turns into a dark shadow on the breast just forward of the =
wing, this=20
must have been shot in bright sunlight (in mid afternoon in =
February,=20
apparently). From the angle of the shadow (caused by =
occlusion=20
by the bend of the extended wing), sunlight would have to have =
been=20
falling from the right, top, about 50 degrees off vertical, =
and=20
roughly in the plane of the photo. I=E2=80=99m not =
sure, but am=20
surprised that the sun would appear so high in a February =
afternoon in=20
UK. For a 50=C2=B0 angle of illumination, it=E2=80=99s =
then surprising that=20
the front edge of the weasel=E2=80=99s left leg =
doesn=E2=80=99t appear to cast any=20
shadow on the woodpecker. Also, if you magnify the image =
on=20
screen and focus on the bases of the left primaries, the clear =
regular=20
pattern of alternating dark-light bands on the distal part of =
the=20
primary feathers gives way to a rotated square pattern near =
the bases=20
that doesn=E2=80=99t blend in and looks artificial. Next =
to this is an=20
out of focus area that is surprising given the excellent focus =
on the=20
ends of the primaries, which is where the most motion-blur =
would be=20
expected if that=E2=80=99s what=E2=80=99s generating the poor =
resolution on the=20
proximal wing.<BR><BR>You can over-analyze images like this, =
and=20
probably none of this allows us to tell for sure if it is =
genuine or=20
not, but in aggregate it still looks very dubious to me. =
I also=20
didn=E2=80=99t find his pitch particularly convincing =
=E2=80=94 he really went out=20
specifically to look for this species of=20
woodpecker?<BR>Steve<BR><BR>On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Keith =
Lowe=20
<<A =
href=3D"mailto:mythos25@live.com">mythos25@live.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite">There are multiple shots of it. Some =
articles referred to it as "baby"<BR>weasel. Here is a video =
of him=20
explaining the circumstances.<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31722410">http://www.=
bbc.com/news/science-environment-31722410</A><BR><BR><BR>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR>From: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.=
ca</A>=20
[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">mailto:naturens-owner@chebu=
cto.ns.ca</A>]<BR>On=20
Behalf Of Walt Norris<BR>Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:28 =
PM<BR>To: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A><BR>Su=
bject:=20
RE: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on=20
a<BR>woodpecker's back<BR><BR>As a photographer I would say =
this is=20
a hoax .<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Walt<BR><BR>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR>From: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.=
ca</A>=20
[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">mailto:naturens-owner@chebu=
cto.ns.ca</A>]<BR>On=20
Behalf Of Stephen Shaw<BR>Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:52 =
PM<BR>To: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A><BR>Su=
bject:=20
RE: [NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on=20
a<BR>woodpecker's back<BR><BR>Too good to be true? As =
with the=20
recent tufty eared squirrel, I'd suspect<BR>some sort of=20
photo-fraud.<BR>The British green woodpecker is quite a =
large bird,=20
about 12.5 inches long<BR>according to Peterson et al, and =
while a=20
least weasel should be about 7-8"<BR>long, this one looks =
more like=20
6".<BR>Has the weasel been photoshopped in? It doesn't =
look to=20
be gripping the<BR>neck of the bird and indenting the =
feathers there=20
with any intensity, as you<BR>might suspect it would be =
doing in the=20
=
circumstances.<BR>Steve<BR>________________________________________<BR>Fr=
om:=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.=
ca</A>=20
[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.=
ca</A>]=20
on<BR>behalf of Burkhard Plache [<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:burkhardplache@gmail.com">burkhardplache@gmail.com</A>]<BR=
>Sent:=20
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:04 PM<BR>To: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A><BR>Su=
bject:=20
[NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on=20
a<BR>woodpecker's back<BR><BR>In case you are interested to=20
see<BR><A=20
=
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=20
virus found in this message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A=20
href=3D"http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: =
2015.0.5751 /=20
Virus Database: 4299/9221 - Release Date:=20
=
03/03/15<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></=
DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><A></A>
<P align=3Dleft color=3D"#000000" avgcert??>No virus found in this=20
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A=20
href=3D"http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2015.0.5751 / =
Virus=20
Database: 4299/9249 - Release Date: =
03/07/15</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_1062_01D05987.ABEC46F0--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects