[NatureNS] BBC Article - Weasel photographed riding on a woodpecker's back

References: <CAD2SNSAdS7BHg6ur=0Nkpr53_GEy0ChiwfxbG_yvJ1WDCp6CKQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0301MB09095AFA1395FDB843F08570B31E0@DM2PR0301MB0909.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <000301d05622$c67641a0$5362c4e0$@ns.sympatico.ca> <BLU405-EAS62B8379159D8D32F6DDDABB01E0@phx.gbl> <E52E6060-55A6-4089-B2B5-3B06493592FB@dal.ca> <E0302682A05544E3934DF88E09547A36@D58WQPH1> <CCBBF6F8-4AC8-4388-B2E4-C20C68B1211E@dal.ca> <841A867B-5A08-49CF-BDEB-55F3E6CAB241@gmail.com>
From: Ian Woodman <calicoangus@bell.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 01:09:05 -0500
To: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

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;">&nbsp;~&nbsp;</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 &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:larrybird4134@gmail.com">larrybird4134@gmail.com</a>&gt; 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.&nbsp;<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Mar 7, 2015=
, at 11:47 PM, Stephen Shaw &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:srshaw@Dal.Ca">srshaw@Dal.=
Ca</a>&gt; 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". &nbsp;In the BBC interview, this UK guy has a b=
ig rig camera and appears to be an experienced photographer.
 &nbsp;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.=
 &nbsp;Photographers may wish to comment.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How about 'when measured=E2=80=99? &nbsp;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. &nbsp;The sun=E2=80=99s implied elevation then is=
 (90 minus this), or 42.83=C2=B0, not 35=C2=B0. &nbsp;&nbsp;</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.&nbsp;</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:&nbsp;</div>
<div>www.latlong.net/&nbsp;&nbsp;</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:&nbsp;<=
/div>
<div><a href=3D"http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224682277">keisan.casio=
.com/exec/system/1224682277</a>&nbsp; &nbsp;</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.
 &nbsp; 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: &nbsp;26.47=C2=B0</div>
<div>3PM: &nbsp;20.78=C2=B0</div>
<div>4PM: &nbsp;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: &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;=
And if that were true, the loaded woodpecker would actually be heading upwar=
ds by 22=C2=B0 (3PM), probably close to stall angle. &nbsp;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. &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; 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.&nbsp;</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>&gt;&gt; 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&lt;&lt;</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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp; Highly recommended.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--------------------------------------------------</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:31 AM, David &amp; Alison Webster &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:dwebster@glinx.com">dwebster@glinx.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">Hi Steve &amp; All,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;I think there is no reason to suppose it not to be genuine.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;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>
&nbsp;&nbsp;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>
&nbsp;&nbsp;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>
&nbsp;&nbsp;Time will tell.<br>
<br>
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Shaw" &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:srshaw@Dal.Ca">srshaw@Dal.Ca</a>&gt;<br>
To: &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</=
a>&gt;<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). &nbsp;=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. &nbsp;&nbsp;I=E2=80=99m n=
ot sure, but am surprised that the sun would appear
 so high in a February afternoon in UK. &nbsp;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.=
 &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mythos25@live.=
com">mythos25@live.com</a>&gt; 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 &nbsp;.<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? &nbsp;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? &nbsp;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