[Curtis Croulet]

hgr: She also says much else, but I'm not surprised that you'd ignore it and focus on one word. Classic conspiracist thinking. I'll not discuss it further. I've had my say.

[timeshadowed]

Originally Posted by hgr389

mistake

Are you TROLLING AGAIN ,HGR??????

That "quote" by Barbara is taken out of context!

I'm not surprized that you would focus on only this ONE teanny, tinny bit.

Oh, and I might also add, you have AGAIN ignored my questions to you!!

TimeShadowed

[curunir]

Originally Posted by hgr389

Hey Curtis,

After one day at the AOU meeting, Laura Erickson now says this in her blog:

"I think that it was probably a mistake of Cornell to announce their work in Science, and present it as definitive, rather than using the more careful language in these papers presented today."

Well, Cornell probably didn't want to get scooped by a competitor publishing elsewhere. Who that competitor could be I can't guess. Probably got nervous after a year of keeping mum. Watson and Crick didn't publish all of their findings in Nature either.

[buck3m]

Originally Posted by timeshadowed

Are you TROLLING AGAIN ,HGR??????

That "quote" by Barbara is taken out of context!

I'm not surprized that you would focus on only this ONE teanny, tinny bit.

Oh, and I might also add, you have AGAIN ignored my questions to you!!

TimeShadowed

It's not a "quote," it's a quote. If you accurately present what someone has said, word for word, that's a quote. Quotes are almost always "out of context" because it's sensible to present the relevant words and not the entire speech or book. She disagrees with him, and yet he gave you a link to her blog so you can read the quote in context, if you like.

affe22, your example of out of context quotes were invalid because you purposely selected quotes to change their meaning. hgr389's quote of Laura Erickson is accurate because he's trying to show she has changed her mind about whether they should have announced there was definitive proof. That's what the whole debate is about! (Although I disagree with her on some of her views, I think she's got a great birding blog.)

You both have repeatedly quoted hgr389 and myself out of context.

Timeshadowed, I'll answer some of your questions on hgr389's behalf. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Why do you even continue posting your ludicrous ideas of doubt about the existence of the IBWO here on BirdForum?
Obviously they're not ludicrous if they're being discussed at the AOU meeting.

Why are you so convinced that the IBWO is EXTINCT?!?
If you've read his blog, and listened to what he's said, he's NOT. He's said that: "I am absolutely not certain that the IBWO is extinct. For everyone interested in the controversy, I think an excellent question is 'What is your estimated probability that the IBWO lives?' My current answer is 'Greater than 0, but well short of 50%'."

We WANT the IBWO to be alive and well.

I have not seen any hard EVIDENCE presented in any of your posts that would convince me that the IBWO was indeed EXTINCT.
Please see the above. Most reasonable people suspected that the IBWO may likely be extinct after there were no confirmed sightings for 6 decades.

Rather, all you seem to be doing here on BirdForum is TROLLING.
Absolutely untrue. He IS trying to raise awareness, however, that there is still debate on whether sufficient proof has been presented.

Why do you continue to post statements that are only meant to inflame and not inform?
I'm not going to dignify that with an answer.

Curtis, I'd like to take you at your word (twice repeated) that you're "bowing out of the debate." And I'm a little tired of your use of the word conspiracy. Your Ad Hominem attacks on hgr389 and myself do not change the evidence or the facts, and that's what we should be debating.

[affe22]

Buck, my misrepresentation of quotes is no more invalid than HGR's. I did the same thing he did, took single line quotes, stated what I thought they showed, and then sited the source. Same thing. I too am now tired of this debate and shall be posting no more.

[buck3m]

Originally Posted by affe22

I too am now tired of this debate and shall be posting no more.

OK, I'll quote you on that.

[curunir]

Originally Posted by buck3m

If you've read his blog, and listened to what he's said, he's NOT. He's said that: "I am absolutely not certain that the IBWO is extinct. For everyone interested in the controversy, I think an excellent question is 'What is your estimated probability that the IBWO lives?' My current answer is 'Greater than 0, but well short of 50%'."

Naw, 95%. 99% less 4% for a pileated in drag. I took Statistics for Dummies in college.

[buck3m]

Originally Posted by curunir

Naw, 95%. 99% less 4% for a pileated in drag. I took Statistics for Dummies in college.

Ok, a valid alternate opinion!

[thatmagicguy]

Every new forum I visit ends up this way,,,it's why I and 100,000 other people don't visit forums that much. Every forum has either antagonists or trollers,,,and every forum has people that announce they are leaving,,,there is a total lack of credibility in forum atmospheres,,,serious researchers in any subject fail to participate because in the end in every controversial topic the end result is the same,,,the squabbling and least common denominator prevails,,,,,the internet has reached it's peak and will end up the swill that it is becoming,,too bad. Bill

[buck3m]

Originally Posted by thatmagicguy

the squabbling and least common denominator prevails

At least that's the way it appears here, Bill. But it isn't that way on most of the other forums that I'm involved in. In most of them there's respect for the opinion of others. If you don't like their ideas and conclusions, you don't attack the people.

NPR Story

This NPR story was interesting. Above is a link to the written story and you can listen to the broadcast.

As you can see below, there has been a retreat from "solid proof" to "suggestive evidence."

Still, the Cornell team says their evidence is "suggestive," and isn't what they'd like it to be -- the bird or birds are skittish and quiet, the video is short and blurry and the audio recordings are faint.

Please note that that's NPR's summary of the story, not mine.

This shows three things, in my opinion:
1. They believe their evidence strongly suggests that the ivory-bill lives
2. No one piece of evidence is solid proof, nor is the collective evidence solid proof yet, (including the video, audio, and individual sightings.)
3. They are reasonable, open-minded people, who really are interested in the truth.

I'm going to assume in advance that some of you will accuse me of taking things out of context and twisting their words, so please visit the link yourself.

gws, please review my link on Ad Hominem, and lets talk about the evidence and the facts, and not what you think about us.

As for the Roger Tory Peterson blog comment, give me a break! Everyone who knows anything about birding knows that Roger Tory Peterson, bless him, has passed away. Therefore people aren't going to mistakenly assume that he's making phone calls and attending meetings. Since we have to rely on old photos and accounts of confirmed sightings to evaluate the current evidence, RTP's quotes on the topic were perfectly relevant. For nitpickers, I've noticed that the title was changed to make sure people couldn't possibly be confused.

By the way, we aren't actually leucistic. You might want to clarify that.

[buck3m]

John Fitzpatrick, the head of the Cornell lab, said after the presentation that the researchers were not retreating from their conclusion that at least one ivory bill existed in Arkansas, that it was the weight of the combined evidence that had convinced him.

This is what was reported in the New York Times. Doesn't seem like Cornell has backed off from this quote!

[timeshadowed]

Originally Posted by thatmagicguy

Every forum has either antagonists or trollers,,,and every forum has people that announce they are leaving,,, Bill

No one has announced in this thread that they were leaving the FORUM. What they said was, that they are tired of debating HGR and Buck in this THREAD.

It does not matter what evidence is posted, those 2 (HGR and Buck) seem to turn everything flip-flop and upside down in order to "troll for a response".

Stick around. This FORUM has some really good information on birds!

TimeShadowed

edited to correct spelling

[timeshadowed]

There is no known evidence of leucistic Pileated Woodpeckers resembling an IBWO to be found! Yet this is one of HGR's MAIN reasons why he rejects the film clip as being a REAL IBWO!!

ps
Embolding is mine

TimeShadowed
http://birdwatching.birderblog.com/
LAURA ERICKSON says:
"I didn't hear anything really new, but
did learn, after questioning several knowledgeable
people, that there are no specimens or photographic
evidence of leucistic Pileated Woodpeckers with
anything like an Ivory-bill pattern of white to be
found--if anyone has photos, they haven't published
them anywhere. Ken Rosenberg also told me that,
simply because there do exist rumors of such Pileateds,
observers were specifically searching for unusual
plumage in Pileateds, but none were observed despite so
many manhours in the field there. I also learned that it
was an overcast day when the video was taken, so that
weakens the case that sunlight somehow made black
parts of a Pileated Woodpecker's wings appear white."

[hgr389]

FYI.

This is cut/pasted from my blog:
-------

Ok, I listened to the January 24 double-knocks and took a look at the sonograms. In my opinion, these double-knocks are a very poor match for the detailed IBWO double-rap description from "The Grail Bird" (see snippet far below).

For one thing, the second knock of the IBWO is supposed to be "nowhere near as hard". In the Jan 24 recordings, the second knock is actually louder than the first.

For another thing, the spacing between the knocks is supposed to be about 75 milliseconds; the Jan 24 spacing looks more like 100 milliseconds to me. You might think that an extra 25 milliseconds of spacing is no big deal, but I think it is significant. Nancy Tanner (below) said that the spacing on a real IBWO double-rap is so close that some people heard them as a single rap. I can't imagine anyone hearing these knocks (spaced at 100 milliseconds) as a single rap.

A double-rap on wood is a very simple sound. If you record one with an ARU (autonomous recording unit), I think you have only two major variables to think about--the relative loudness of the two raps (ie, which of the two raps is louder, and by how much), and the spacing between the two raps. In the Jan 24 recording, neither of those variables is a reasonable match for The Grail Bird's double-rap description.

Of course, the other "half" of the audio information is the kent-like calls. Blue Jays sometimes make kent-like calls, and the IBWO made kent-like calls. I would argue it this way: in 20,000 person-hours in the woods, the searchers must have had thousands of conclusive sightings of Blue Jays, and they had zero conclusive sightings of IBWOs. Given that information, if you hear a kent-like call, it doesn't seem prudent to assume that an IBWO was the likely source.

Overall, in my opinion, the audio information presented yesterday considerably weakens Cornell's case that the IBWO survives. It's important to consider what the ARUs recorded, but I think it's just as important to consider what the ARUs didn't record.

If strategically placed ARUs recorded 17,000 hours of audio in an area where IBWOs live, I think you should expect to capture a good number of classic, "BAM-bam" double-raps, with something like 75 milliseconds separating the raps. The fact that these raps weren't recorded leaves me feeling doubtful that any IBWOs were present (although it's still possible). In 17,000 hours of audio, I'm wondering why you wouldn't capture some Pileated Woodpecker feeding knocks that would sound similar to the recorded Jan 24 double-knocks.
==============================
Below is some background information...

From Cornell's web site:
----
The recording of a distant double knock followed by a single knock on January 24, 2005, is especially intriguing. Russell Charif, who leads the acoustic research effort, first heard the recording with woodpecker expert Martjan Lammertink. “I immediately felt a thrill of excitement when I heard the recording,” Charif said. “Martjan looked at me and said something understated, like, ‘That sounds really good!’” Charif said, however, that as he listened to the sound repeatedly, his excitement was tempered as he began to wonder about slight differences in the sound compared with scientific descriptions of Ivory-billed Woodpecker display drums.

For example, those descriptions mention that the first knock is louder than the second. In the recording from Arkansas, the second knock is slightly louder. However, there are so few records of these display drums that researchers do not know to what degree they may vary depending on the geographic location and the context in which they are used. Without any recordings of known double knocks, there is no precise reference with which to compare the mysterious sounds from the Big Woods.
----

Here's a paragraph from "The Grail Bird", page 40:
---
This BAM-bam is the characteristic drum of a Campephilus woodpecker, a genus found through much of South and Central America, with the ivory-bill being the northernmost representative of the group. "The second part of the double rap is so quick," said Nancy, "it sounds like an echo of the first and is nowhere near as hard." The space between the two parts of the double rap is only about seventy-five milliseconds, which is so close that some people hear them as a single rap. But the separate parts are clear if you look at a sonogram (a visual representation of a sound showing its pitch and duration).
---
"Nancy" in the paragraph above is Nancy Tanner, who was married to the ivory-bill expert Jim Tanner. Nancy Tanner heard real Ivory-bill double-knocks in the 1940s

[curunir]

Originally Posted by hgr389

Of course, the other "half" of the audio information is the kent-like calls. Blue Jays sometimes make kent-like calls, and the IBWO made kent-like calls. I would argue it this way: in 20,000 person-hours in the woods, the searchers must have had thousands of conclusive sightings of Blue Jays, and they had zero conclusive sightings of IBWOs. Given that information, if you hear a kent-like call, it doesn't seem prudent to assume that an IBWO was the likely source.

How many hours of pileated knocks did they record? Realistically, if you get x many ivorybill maybes you probably should get at least 20x or more pileated forsures. Also, if jays liked Ivorybill kents, I presume they'd establish them in their repetoire, even retaining them over a period of years and generations.

[thatmagicguy]

I liked the NPR recording,,it had decent comparisons of the old and new recordings. I was confused by the double raps,,,by reading Tanner,,as you said,,the second should have been an echo of the first,,,strangely in Hoose's book he describes it as a ba-DAM! The second syllable being louder. But if you listen to the NPR story they do play a confirmed central american Campephilus species double rapping and it is identical to the arkansas rapping. I can't help but be suspicious of someone sitting underneath the recording devices and banging two logs together to fool Cornell.

The kent noises were inconclusive to me,,,at first they sound identical to the old Cornell recording,,but then again,,,they sound like jays to me. The only thing that is different than a jay is that when the jays make the kent sounding calls they usually interject other noises as well which I didn't hear on the tape. But still,,inconclusive is the only conclusion I can come up with.

In my searches here in florida I have heard raps and kent calls,,,but never in conjunction with a bird sighting,,,I do not place alot of credence in audible sounds,,,,I was in a cypress swamp recently and for the life of me I thought there was a sharp shinned hawk squawking at me,,,I looked and looked,,,the sound is on my camcorder,,,then,,it appeared,,it was a thrasher,,,doing a perfect mimic. I laughed for an hour thinking that bird must really think alot of himself immitating an accipiter that would just as soon eat him. Bill

[hgr389]

Originally Posted by timeshadowed

There is no known evidence of leucistic Pileated Woodpeckers resembling an IBWO to be found! Yet this is one of HGR's MAIN reasons why he rejects the film clip as being a REAL IBWO!!

Actually, I think the bird in the video may be a completely normal (non-leucistic) Pileated.

As for the seven sightings, as you know, I think it's likely that none of the observers actually saw an IBWO. I don't know what they saw. A Pileated Woodpecker with abnormal amounts of white on the upperwing is one logical guess. This bird could be a leucistic Pileated. Another possibility is a Pileated that had molted some black coverts so that an abnormal amount of white was revealed in the upperwing.

[cyberthrush]

[quote=buck3m]
I believe it is fair to say that the two sides of the issue are:

1. The IBW has been proven to be with us all along.
2. The IBW may still be here, but should be presumed extinct until better evidence is offered.
---------------------------------

NO, you've left out the most important option:

3. The IBWO may or may not still be here, but should be PRESUMED TO EXIST until proven extinct BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This threshold has never even been close to met for this species, with repeated possible sightings over the decades, IN SPITE of the paltry few large scale organized searches ever carried out. How many NEW animal species are found each year; how many 'lost' species are RE-discovered every century?... or in the case of the coelacanthe, every 65 million yrs. The arguments for IBWO extinction would be laughable if they weren't so tragically serious in their consequences.

[curunir]

Originally Posted by cyberthrush

3. The IBWO may or may not still be here, but should be PRESUMED TO EXIST until proven extinct BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This threshold has never even been close to met for this species, with repeated possible sightings over the decades, IN SPITE of the paltry few large scale organized searches ever carried out. How many NEW animal species are found each year; how many 'lost' species are RE-discovered every century?... or in the case of the coelacanthe, every 65 million yrs. The arguments for IBWO extinction would be laughable if they weren't so tragically serious in their consequences.

Behind Door Number 3 is the status quo with much more status with the Cornell expedition. Ivorybills are still officially with us according to the Endangered Species Act. Where should one really worry about them? Not in some godforsaken swamp, but in the old pine highlands where they might still exist and developer's eye the property. If there is a pair close to a freeway, should the location be announced? I wonder if a location can be pinpointed by the sound of cars?

[buck3m]

"In the 70s there was a partially albino Pileated Woodpecker that was very much patterned like an Ivorybill. It required a visit. Already since the Arkansas sighting another bird like this has been reported in Baytown. Fortunately with the use of Internet birdcalls, this Baytown bird was identified as a Pileated without a trip to the home. These birds demonstrate that plumage alone will not assure you that you are tracking an Ivorybill."

The above quote taken from hgr389's blog (link provided there to read in context) from a paper entitled "Ivory-billed woodpecker found in Arkansas, Implications for Texas" by Fred Collins.

[curunir]

Originally Posted by buck3m

"In the 70s there was a partially albino Pileated Woodpecker that was very much patterned like an Ivorybill. It required a visit. Already since the Arkansas sighting another bird like this has been reported in Baytown. Fortunately with the use of Internet birdcalls, this Baytown bird was identified as a Pileated without a trip to the home. These birds demonstrate that plumage alone will not assure you that you are tracking an Ivorybill."

How do you get partially albino? One white feather?

[buck3m]

Originally Posted by curunir

How do you get partially albino? One white feather?

You'd have to ask Fred Collins, but obviously enough white feathers to make them appear "very much patterned like an Ivorybill." Seems like it would take thousands, doesn't it?

[buck3m]

As quoted in Birdersworld:

2. Upper-wing pattern. A questioner asked Rosenberg (who admitted that he was hoping to time his talk so as not to have to take questions) if members of the search team had observed any Pileated Woodpeckers with aberrant plumage. Rosenberg said that there were reports of such birds, and that he had seen a photograph of a Pileated that was missing upper-wing coverts. The missing feathers exposed more white than usual on the bird’s wing. Rosenberg said that the resulting pattern was not symmetrical, and stressed that he had seen nothing to contradict the team’s conclusion that the Luneau bird’s wing pattern was that of an Ivory-bill.

So now we know that there are leucistic Pileated woodpeckers and we know that there has been as least one leucistic Pileated patterned much like an ivory-bill. The team has verified at least one abnormally plumaged Pileated was sighted in the search area.

Thanks to hgr389 for his research and finding the above quote. His blog discusses how this abnormally plumaged Pileated could be the source of most of the sightings, and how it explains such things as why the other Ivory-bill field marks were consistently unseen, why the loud wing noise was never noted, and why there's a photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated, but not of an ivory-bill.

[timeshadowed]

Originally Posted by buck3m

"Thanks to hgr389 for his research and finding the above quote. His blog discusses how this abnormally plumaged Pileated could be the source of most of the sightings. . .. .and why there's a photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated, but not of an ivory-bill."

"and why there's a photo of the abnormally plumaged Pileated, but not of an ivory-bill." - buck3m

1. Are you presenting this as a proven FACT or just a conculsion that buck3m and hgr389 have made?

2. Where is the evidence that proves the above statement?

3. Where are the clear photos showing these leucistic Pileated woodpeckers exist?

Please post the photos or give a link for them so that we can all examine this 'new' evidence for ourselves.

TimeShadowed

[Pinewood]

The old fashioned way of ending this debate, would be the collection of a specimen, which is not going to happen. Even confirmed sightings may be questioned and all videos and photographs may be suspect.

As Natural History Magazine has published an article in the September, 2005 issue by Bobby R. Harrison, about his sightings of the ivory billed, I am going to accept its existence.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood