Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

gws · Aug 3, 2006

Mike Johnston said:
Why do you insist on making this an anti-American thing? That's simply childish. There are plenty of Americans who are equally sceptical based on existing evidence. And if some of you actually bothered to explore other threads you will find plenty of 'action', ie debate, advice, humour, information, etc. from people of all nationalities. Trying widening your horizons a little. It's a big world out there! I sometimes wonder whether any of you are actually interested in birds at all, other than IBWO. A complete ignorance of the wider birding world, including the ability to ID, doesn't do you any favours when trying to present evidence.

I will be glad to compare my horizons and depth of knowledge about many subjects with you anytime, pal.

Interest in the ivorybill story is what has brought a lot of people to these forums. Of course I have an interest in birds, but one of them above all others.

And in regards to the "insist on making this an anti-American thing", I have never commented on that before, but one would have to be a little thick not to recognize some of the little brother syndrome contained in some of the remarks here.

humminbird · Aug 3, 2006

Mike Johnston said:
Who made Cornell infallible?

An equally significant question, who made Kaufman infallible? Or Jackson? or Sibley (who by the way has never said the bird in the video was not an IBWO - just that it is inconclusive)?
Are we quibbling over whose word is acceptable and whose is not?
Personally, the Cornell team is in the field absorbing this evidence that the rest of us, including the trio above, are receiving bits and drabs of, insitu and first hand. I learned long ago to put a lot of stock in the man on the ground doing the work.

MacGillivray's Trout · Aug 3, 2006

Snowy1 said:
Done! I would like to hear a reply that can scientifically undo the results...

Try Sibley et al. Done!

gws · Aug 3, 2006

Bonsaibirder said:
It is blue today but it was red the other night, grey the day before and I couldn't see it the day before that. I suppose your mum told you it was blue one day and you never thought to look up ever again ?

Well, it looks red, white and blue to me today.

How is the sun setting these days, Bonsai? o

And please, leave dear old Mum out of this.

Cheers.

Snowy1 · Aug 3, 2006

To begin, I appreciate the time at least, that you put in to address the issue. Keeping on a polite note...

Bonsaibirder said:
Do we really have to go over this again? Even many IBWO 'believers' admit the Luneau video is inconclusive.

That question should be asked of Chris Murphy, who inspired me to reply.

So, whatever Cornell says goes. End of story. They can't be wrong. There's no point even looking at their evidence. Fitz and Harrison couldn't possibly be mistaken. Wow - you are trusting! I suppose all the woodpeckers you see fly like fulmars too!

I am trusting to a certain extent, yes. I think one needs to be. If it was some unknown organization I may think differently. The chances of Harrison mistaking the IBWO is less than people think. When you spend 33 years in that habitat, you can identify a Pileated within seconds, even with a poor view. He has experience. When it's not a Pileated then...

Amazing - questioning dubious evidence and dubious analysis is undoing the scientific process - what kind of science to you practise? Scientology? If we are going to stop questioning scientific results then perhaps we should stop peer review as well - that would undo the scientific process completely.

Peer review and questioning the results were done by Cornell before the release of the article. Why so much debate (as though they simply unloaded all of their information without thinking about the consequences)?

Well people have tried to raise sensible criticisms of the Luneau video almost since this thread began. There are bona fide criticisms of the video and the methods used to analyse it, some of which have been published in Science - one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world. Try reading Sibley's article. Try reading the technical criticisms of the Luneau video here (I advise you to ignore the poetry).

I've read the criticisms, however, I still get the impression they are based more on disbelief than science. People are letting there personal feelings get in the way. That should have no part in the scientific process.

Mike Johnston · Aug 3, 2006

humminbird said:
An equally significant question, who made Kaufman infallible? Or Jackson? or Sibley (who by the way has never said the bird in the video was not an IBWO - just that it is inconclusive)?
Are we quibbling over whose word is acceptable and whose is not?
Personally, the Cornell team is in the field absorbing this evidence that the rest of us, including the trio above, are receiving bits and drabs of, insitu and first hand. I learned long ago to put a lot of stock in the man on the ground doing the work.

I never said they were. Simply responding to a statement that Cornell has spoken therefore it is the truth, IBWO existence has been definitively proven and all debate should be stopped. Some people happen to find that approach to science a little unusual, to say the least.

Mike Johnston · Aug 3, 2006

I will be glad to compare my horizons and depth of knowledge about many subjects with you anytime, pal.

Delighted to

Interest in the ivorybill story is what has brought a lot of people to these forums. Of course I have an interest in birds, but one of them above all others.

Why this one above all others? And if you all have such a great interest in birds why do most of you never post or indeed visit any other threads? Hundreds of posts combined but a miniscule % on anything other than IBWO. Doesn't show a great interest to me, shows rather an IBWO fixation.

And in regards to the "insist on making this an anti-American thing", I have never commented on that before, but one would have to be a little thick not to recognize some of the little brother syndrome contained in some of the remarks here.

If any, probably just in response to the 'you don't know what you're talking about unless you're here' attitude constantly encountered. Or the classic question from a while back, 'why are so many non-Americans interested in an American bird?'

Edward woodwood · Aug 3, 2006

some of you who view another webste may have noted I believed Cornell to begin with - after all they're professional people etc... I reasoned the birds had been seen well and I heard there was a video, BirdLife were in there too... Then slowly it all unravelled...as i saw the 'evidence' I just thought 'stringy'. And it's just got worse from there on in. The evidence has fallen apart and there are loads of unreliable sightings - none of which have been backed up. I've actually changed my view based on what was presented... as did many, many others

There is something ever so slightly creepy about this thread and people's singular obssession with the bird... and therein lie some dodgy sightings!

Xenospiza · Aug 3, 2006

timeshadowed said:
I think that Xenospiza has probably expressed the skeptics viewpoint best.

I believed the Luneau video for quite a while (but all the evidence is in Dutch). Did that change my viewpoint on other sightings, with less (or no) evidence? No: a "believer" should be just as skeptical as a "skeptic"...

(I started writing this before Tim's post appeared – uncanny!)

humminbird · Aug 3, 2006

Tim Allwood said:
some of you who view another webste may have noted I believed Cornell to begin with - after all they're professional people etc... I reasoned the birds had been seen well and I heard there was a video, BirdLife were in there too... Then slowly it all unravelled...as i saw the 'evidence' I just thought 'stringy'. And it's just got worse from there on in. The evidence has fallen apart and there are loads of unreliable sightings - none of which have been backed up. I've actually changed my view based on what was presented... as did many, many others

There is something ever so slightly creepy about this thread and people's singular obssession with the bird... and therein lie some dodgy sightings!

Tim:
I am beginning to share some, not all of those feelings. I remain convinced the bird exists, but not that some of the "evidence" is fact.

Mike Johnston · Aug 3, 2006

Tim Allwood said:
some of you who view another webste may have noted I believed Cornell to begin with - after all they're professional people etc... I reasoned the birds had been seen well and I heard there was a video, BirdLife were in there too... Then slowly it all unravelled...as i saw the 'evidence' I just thought 'stringy'. And it's just got worse from there on in. The evidence has fallen apart and there are loads of unreliable sightings - none of which have been backed up. I've actually changed my view based on what was presented... as did many, many others

There is something ever so slightly creepy about this thread and people's singular obssession with the bird... and therein lie some dodgy sightings!

I can only echo Tim's experience. I was delighted when I first heard of the 'rediscovery', video, etc. But the 'evidence' has indeed proved dodgy, and continues to. There seems to be the opinion that 'sceptics' get some sort of pleasure from this. Not at all. All sceptics will be delighted if firm evidence is produced, and deeply unhappy if the species does indeed prove to be extinct (as they would be for all extinctions).

IBWO_Agnostic · Aug 3, 2006

humminbird said:
... or Sibley (who by the way has never said the bird in the video was not an IBWO - just that it is inconclusive)?......

Just to clarify.
From the Sibley et al. Technical Comment:

Fitzpatrick et al. list five features to support their conclusion that the bird in the video is an ivory-billed woodpecker: (i) size, (ii) wing pattern at rest, (iii) wing pattern in flight, (iv) white plumage on dorsum, and (v) black-white-black pattern presumed to be a perched bird (1). Our analysis of the digital video and deinterlaced video frames (10) demonstrates that this conclusion rests on mistaken interpretations of the bird's posture, that several features visible in the video contradict identification as a typical ivory-billed woodpecker, and that other features support identification as a pileated woodpecker.

"Other features support identification as a pileated woodpecker."

Snowy1 · Aug 3, 2006

IBWO_Agnostic said:
Just to clarify.
From the Sibley et al. Technical Comment:

Fitzpatrick et al. list five features to support their conclusion that the bird in the video is an ivory-billed woodpecker: (i) size, (ii) wing pattern at rest, (iii) wing pattern in flight, (iv) white plumage on dorsum, and (v) black-white-black pattern presumed to be a perched bird (1). Our analysis of the digital video and deinterlaced video frames (10) demonstrates that this conclusion rests on mistaken interpretations of the bird's posture, that several features visible in the video contradict identification as a typical ivory-billed woodpecker, and that other features support identification as a pileated woodpecker.

"Other features support identification as a pileated woodpecker."

That's fine. They are entitled to disagree. I personally see nothing in that video that actually supports PIWO. I believe that statement itself shows that at least their process in flawed - but - again, that's just my opinion. And that brings me back to my initial reply to Chris Murphy. Like it or hate it, Cornell made the call. You can disagree with the call, but the Ivorybill is down in the history books as having been seen in 2004 and 2005.

MacGillivray's Trout · Aug 3, 2006

cinclodes said:
Over the past few months, I've had some discussions about my data with well known birders and ornithologists. It's always the same pattern. At first, they try to play the devil's advocate. After presenting them with facts that show that their arguments are flawed, I never hear from them again.

Odd how I present questions for cinclodes and never hear from him again.

timeshadowed · Aug 4, 2006

Google Alert for: ivory billed woodpecker

University of Maryland and NASA Researchers Use Laser Sensor to Map Possible Habitat for Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin...0803.075025&time=09 28 PDT&year=2006&public=0

AScribe (press release) - USA
... from the University of Maryland and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center are mapping out areas of habitat suitable for the ivory-billed woodpecker, the largest and
...

timeshadowed · Aug 4, 2006

Mike Johnston said:
. . . And if some of you actually bothered to explore other threads . . .

I have posted on other threads . . .BUT when I posted to this thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=63449

I was not made to feel very welcome - in fact I was actually told:
Post #24
"Stick to the IBWO thread"
Tim

Post #28
"Why don't you leave stupid commects like those in the laughable IBWO thread where they belong?"
chris murphy

And 'Big Phil' in post #59 was down right insulting!

So . . Thanks for the very warm welcome - NOT

TimeShadowed

Mike Johnston · Aug 4, 2006

timeshadowed said:
I have posted on other threads . . .BUT when I posted to this thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=63449

I was not made to feel very welcome - in fact I was actually told:
Post #24
"Stick to the IBWO thread"
Tim

Post #28
"Why don't you leave stupid commects like those in the laughable IBWO thread where they belong?"
chris murphy

And 'Big Phil' in post #59 was down right insulting!

So . . Thanks for the very warm welcome - NOT

TimeShadowed

I'm sorry if you felt unwelcome on that particular thread Timeshadowed (I wish people would use their names). But you must admit, it was a curious thread to suddenly begin posting on - the removal of a 1940s British breeding record for Moustached Warbler? When you've posted almost exclusively on the IBWO thread and then suddenly appear on this obscure thread, can you blame people for being slightly suspicious as to your motives? Their first thought is that you are somehow trying to link it to IBWO. And the responses you received were from people you've already had run-ins with here. But on the other hand, Jos took the time to seriously answer your questions - so don't damn everyone.

Rightly or wrongly, whether we like it or not, if we post often enough on BF we get some sort of 'reputation' in other people's eyes; there are preconceived ideas of what we are like and what we will post. I'm sure you have one of me! And, like it or not, the IBWO threads have garnered a certain 'reputation' within BF. You were 'unfortunate' enough to choose a particular thread where your 'reputation' preceded you and so your motives were suspected in regards to the subject under discussion. Perhaps begin with less contentious threads?

Personally, I find BF a great support and encouragement and mine of information and fun. It's unfortunate if a 'them and us' mentality has arisen between the IBWO threads and the rest of BF. I and others might be viewed as 'sceptics' on this thread and so be unwelcome to some, but I genuinely would hate to think you or any other IBWO poster felt unwelcome to post on other BF threads, if genuinely motivated to do so. :t:

colonelboris · Aug 4, 2006

[lurk=off]I'd be careful about taking a University group's work as gospel truth. It's based on research and conclusions are then drawn. Sometimes the conclusions aren't the right one's, but may not be realised at the time.
Cold fusion springs to mind.
I know a few people in science who 'massage' results and get away with it, so a honest mistake may be even harder to spot if it was arrived at without the thought of bending the truth.
To be honest, there's been bad science on both sides.[lurk=on]

timeshadowed · Aug 4, 2006

Thanks for your kind reply (below). And yes, I did notice that Jos took the time to seriously answer my questions in a repectfull manner. There were others that did the same, but that still does not excuse the others who were not.

I have always been interested in the 'rare' birds - CA Condor, Bald Eagle in the early 60's when it was declining, Whooping Crane etc - so that is what caught my eye about the MW thread title. I read all the posts before I posted in it and began asking questions. However, I was not the first to mention the IBWO within that thread, but I did wonder if there was more in common with the IBWO other than the 40's date, thus my questions. But enough of rehash.

I have also read and posted on a number of threads on BF. I read more then post however.

TimeShadowed

Mike Johnston said:
I'm sorry if you felt unwelcome on that particular thread Timeshadowed (I wish people would use their names). But you must admit, it was a curious thread to suddenly begin posting on - the removal of a 1940s British breeding record for Moustached Warbler? When you've posted almost exclusively on the IBWO thread and then suddenly appear on this obscure thread, can you blame people for being slightly suspicious as to your motives? Their first thought is that you are somehow trying to link it to IBWO. And the responses you received were from people you've already had run-ins with here. But on the other hand, Jos took the time to seriously answer your questions - so don't damn everyone.

Rightly or wrongly, whether we like it or not, if we post often enough on BF we get some sort of 'reputation' in other people's eyes; there are preconceived ideas of what we are like and what we will post. I'm sure you have one of me! And, like it or not, the IBWO threads have garnered a certain 'reputation' within BF. You were 'unfortunate' enough to choose a particular thread where your 'reputation' preceded you and so your motives were suspected in regards to the subject under discussion. Perhaps begin with less contentious threads?

Personally, I find BF a great support and encouragement and mine of information and fun. It's unfortunate if a 'them and us' mentality has arisen between the IBWO threads and the rest of BF. I and others might be viewed as 'sceptics' on this thread and so be unwelcome to some, but I genuinely would hate to think you or any other IBWO poster felt unwelcome to post on other BF threads, if genuinely motivated to do so. :t:

Jesse Gilsdorf · Aug 4, 2006

colonelboris said:
[lurk=off]I'd be careful about taking a University group's work as gospel truth. It's based on research and conclusions are then drawn. Sometimes the conclusions aren't the right one's, but may not be realised at the time.
Cold fusion springs to mind.
I know a few people in science who 'massage' results and get away with it, so a honest mistake may be even harder to spot if it was arrived at without the thought of bending the truth.
To be honest, there's been bad science on both sides.[lurk=on]

Good points. Top to bottom.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Distracted

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Right way up again

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread