Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (46 Viewers)

Sidewinder said:

I'll also defend tmguy's photo. I fail to understand why anyone would place faith in such absolute statements as are coming from Mike Johnston regarding the shape of the white stripe. He would have us believe that he (or Tim) has examined all 400-some study skins of IBWOs and, while doing so, has taken careful notes on the shape of the white stripe. Utter nonsense. I would bet my life that not even Jerome Jackson, who has studied most or all of the available specimens, has taken careful note of or quantified the abruptness of the stripe on every such specimen. I have not examined study skins of IBWO myself, but I have taken measurements of facial patterns from hundreds of study skins of another woodpecker species. From my experience, I'll offer two perspectives. First, without a doubt, feathers are highly mobile and they do not stay in one place. Second, even study skins would fail to offer the solid support that Mike (and Tim) propose. The preparation and storage of study skins frequently damage the natural shape and "lay" of feathers. I'm not saying that such a study would be fruitless, but I would not hold my breath believing that the study would show tapering in 100% of the specimens. As loose as feathers are, I wouldn't hold my breath that all photos, if dozens or hundreds could be taken, would also show tapering.

Click to expand...

It is utter nonsense what some of these guys are throwing out. Absolutely no basis whatsoever. They've got their point of view and refuse to budge or even think about any other possibility. I wouldn't have said that before tonight but that little exchange proved a lot. There's no need to go on with them. I'm not even saying what I think of the photo - that's besides the point now. But without even the slightest inclination to leave the possibility open that it's an IBWO, then why discuss?

Bottom line is: you cannot make any scientific statement from that photo. There IS, however, a lot that can be done about it. Hopefully the right people are doing just that.

theveeb said:

I don't think the stripe end on its own is enough to make a call on the photo.

I still think the photo looks like a decoy, but I also think the female in the image on this page looks a little like a decoy also:

http://www.bucktrack.com/Ivory-Billed_Woodpecker.html

Again, Bill can you provide information on the make and model of the camera and the lens that was used to take the photo?

What was the shutter speed on the image? Is the image at full resolution?

Can you describe how the bird was making it's way through the branches? The bird flew across the road and then... It'd be great to hear some more details.

don c.

Click to expand...

See Bill's post #5954.

theveeb said:

I don't think the stripe end on its own is enough to make a call on the photo.

I still think the photo looks like a decoy, but I also think the female in the image on this page looks a little like a decoy also:

http://www.bucktrack.com/Ivory-Billed_Woodpecker.html

Again, Bill can you provide information on the make and model of the camera and the lens that was used to take the photo?

What was the shutter speed on the image? Is the image at full resolution?

Can you describe how the bird was making it's way through the branches? The bird flew across the road and then... It'd be great to hear some more details.

don c.

Click to expand...

The camera I use is a combination digital/video camera. It is an RCA brand, the model number is cc6384. It has no shutter adjustment and I am not a photographer so I have no clue. The only adjustment, as I've already stated is a high or low resolution, I keep it on high. I get angry at people telling me I set the pixels at this or that, I don't even know what that means.

I'm not sure what you want to know about the bird's movement, while in the branches it did a hopping thing, a bit of flapping as well.

I have observed them on the ground hopping. A woman who has observed them as well has seen one ripping apart a pine cone on the ground, tossing it and breaking it up with it's beak. I have seen them on the ground doing what appears to be foraging at the ground around saw palmettos.

The sighting or "episode" involving the photo I have shared lasted all of a minute or two. I saw it fly in, it landed in the branches, I lowered the passenger window and picked up the camera and zoomed in and took one shot. The camera takes 2-3 seconds to take the photo, it clicks, the the image freezes for a second or so before another pic can be taken. In this short span of time the bird went from parallel to the passenger window to parallel to the rear of the car. It flew from there along the tree line and into the pines further in.

I cannot help the way the bird looks, if I could have asked it to stop and pose "better" then I would have.

But I wonder how skeptical people will be at my other photos? For the most part the birds look more "woodpecker-like". Perhaps someone should go in and tell them what they are supposed to look like.

The crests on the males do not look like the paintings. They are more brushlike, very bushy, and the red is more or less only on the sides and the black is much more prominent than the paintings suggest. The females crests look more like a cockatoo's retracted crest, they lay down rather than stick out like the boys. Mike Collins' bird in the video, the original images, is an ivory bill,,a male. Anyone who has seen a real one would have no problem making that distinction.

Bill

timeshadowed said:

I am aware of less than 5 photos of the IBWO - the rest are PAINTINGS.

Click to expand...

Here is a link to some more photos: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/photoalbum/

Slobyn

slobyn said:

Here is a link to some more photos: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/photoalbum/

Slobyn

Click to expand...

Thanks. I noticed that even these photos are a bit 'blurry' and in one, the white stripe on the face/neck hardly shows up, making the neck/face appear almost all black at first glance. However it is very faintly visible.

TineShadowed

danehower said:

Is it time to give up the Ghost bird ?

Click to expand...

Heck no! It just dawned on me that if ALL the video/photographic evidence presented in the last couple of years is the genuine article, then we definitely have IBWOs in at least three states. That would mean at least three populations, and fortunately we know where they are because there are people (some in this very forum) adept at finding and photographing them. Assuming these facts I must conclude that it's a dead certainty that a nest will be discovered next spring. Even the wariest bird has to return to a nest over and over and over...make that two birds if we have a breeding pair, and if the species is this extant there must be at least several breeding pairs...I mean it would be a little weird for a large bird with multiple populations to be unfindable when breeding activity should make them conspicuous in the immediate vicinity of their nests. No worries, next spring there should be no trouble locating a nest. Right?

Here are links to a few images of museum specimens; note the stripe(s) in each case, with the latter two being nice close-ups showing the juxtaposition of white and black:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12568CF00206298/GraphikTitelIntern/MI_Media_Tour_6.gif/$File/MI_Media_Tour_6.gif

http://journalstar.com/content/articles/2005/04/29/local/doc42716393262c2995026370.jpg

http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu303/vu303811.html

Tanner and tmguy postures compared

I'm attaching a side-by-side comparison of the two "decoy-like" postures: Tanner's photo on the left, tmguy's photo on the right. A quick photoshop job. Best viewed by downloading and then enlarging.

tmguy said:

But I wonder how skeptical people will be at my other photos? For the most part the birds look more "woodpecker-like". Perhaps someone should go in and tell them what they are supposed to look like.

The crests on the males do not look like the paintings. They are more brushlike, very bushy, and the red is more or less only on the sides and the black is much more prominent than the paintings suggest. The females crests look more like a cockatoo's retracted crest, they lay down rather than stick out like the boys. Mike Collins' bird in the video, the original images, is an ivory bill,,a male. Anyone who has seen a real one would have no problem making that distinction.

Bill

Click to expand...

One of the major comments about Mike's bird has been that it has a shaggy crest therefore does NOT fit the IBWO profiles that he has been saying are brilliant matches to his bird. It sounds from your post that you have evidence to back up Mike's footage in your other photos. Would you be willing to let us see these to back up your and his sightings?

Cheers,

Sidewinder said:

I'm attaching a side-by-side comparison of the two "decoy-like" postures: Tanner's photo on the left, tmguy's photo on the right. A quick photoshop job. Best viewed by downloading and then enlarging.

Click to expand...

Yes, these look very similar, although one is horizontal and the other is vertical. No matter, since at the resolution of the picture I would think it is quite hard to distinguish whether it had a sharp point to the stripe or not.

There seems to be a difference in the shape and positioning of the white in the wings on these two birds - it would be interesting to compare known photos of IBWO with these wing markings.

Cheers

There are two features of the bird in the photo that confuse me. I wonder if anyone else sees them and has an explanation for them. First, the stripe on its back seems to extend beyond its body. There is space between the end of the stripe and its back. Are these feathers being blown by the wind? Are the feathers that constitute the stripe really that long?

Also, there appears to be a white stripe down the center of the crest. The bird's head is entirely in shadow and the light in the photos is coming from the left (look at the branch in the foreground that is on the left side of the photo), so it isn't glare from the sun.

Thoughts?

all i did was explain how we know what the plumage of an IBWO is like (aside from the odd pic). From looking at skins. I didn't even give an opinion on the bird in the picture, did I?

Whether or not the bird exists, the way it is discussed on these two threads is stringy beyond belief. By all means discuss sightings but please know when to stop. And when to let things go. Some of you may have seen IBWOs but you do yourselves no favours at all.

I'm also amazed tmguy is still here given his obscene insults of Illinoisbirder the other day. Worst thing i've seen on here ever. By far.

Tim

Tim Allwood said:

all i did was explain how we know what the plumage of an IBWO is like (aside from the odd pic). From looking at skins. I didn't even give an opinion on the bird in the picture, did I?

Whether or not the bird exists, the way it is discussed on these two threads is stringy beyond belief. By all means discuss sightings but please know when to stop. And when to let things go. Some of you may have seen IBWOs but you do yourselves no favours at all.

I'm also amazed tmguy is still here given his obscene insults of Illinoisbirder the other day. Worst thing i've seen on here ever. By far.

Tim

Click to expand...

Tim,

You are giving advice on "when to let things go"? You?

I've seen it all, folks. B :gn:

in terms of stringy bird sightings, yes

I enjoy the rest of it

it's so easy

Tim

tmguy said:

But I wonder how skeptical people will be at my other photos? For the most part the birds look more "woodpecker-like". Perhaps someone should go in and tell them what they are supposed to look like.

Bill

Click to expand...

Well, lets see them then.

tmguy, I can't help thinking that you would be better to use the video facility of your camera as opposed to the still. A short video showing movement, or even a series (minimum two) still frames showing a postural change would be more convincing. I too am keen to see your other photographs.

tmguy said:

The camera I use is a combination digital/video camera. It is an RCA brand, the model number is cc6384. It has no shutter adjustment and I am not a photographer so I have no clue. The only adjustment, as I've already stated is a high or low resolution, I keep it on high. I get angry at people telling me I set the pixels at this or that, I don't even know what that means.

Click to expand...

Bill the user guide for this camcorder says that the captured image size is 640x480. Did you crop the image that you posted or did you rescale it? Can you post the image as it was captured from the camcorder without any edits?

So was the bird hopping along the branch in the photo to move from being parallel with the window to the back of the car?

don c.

I found this - nothing like reading original source material


http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v015n03/p0217-p0223.pdf

Fascinating find, Jane - the lust to kill stuff, almost any amount, is truly a culture-shock.

Now, if the IBWO has a similar crest to those of the Imperial shown in the illustration, that would be quite interesting.

From the paper above:

"The birds were surprisingly easy to stalk, even after being hunted and shot at for several days, but were difficult to secure because they are powerful, hard-muscled creatures possessed of remarkable vitality. They showed considerable attachment to one another and when one was shot the other members of the flock remained scattered about on the trees for a short time calling each other at intervals."

(I know they are talking about Imperials, but they are pretty closely related, so it seemed pertinent).