Evidence for the Survival of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (1 Viewer)

[affe22]

Now, after I point out that lots of the key Cornell observers were not ornithologists themselves, it seems that the tone has changed. Now, it seems evident that lay people can, in fact, have credible things to say.

Once again a quote taken out of context. The person was saying that we (the people on bird forum) are the lay people and we need to not make conclusions that should be left for people better educated than ourselves. To call the Cornell people "lay people" is ridiculous. A lot of those people are either experienced field biologists with doctoral degrees or people who had been birding for a very long time and know their stuff. My friend birded with one researcher and stated that he was the best birder he has ever met. You should not consider yourself as qualified as the people that did the research, used technology probably not available to you to do the film analysis, and who would all say that they have in fact had verifiable experience with the IBWP.

 

[BarbaraM]

No Cornell team member (and basically no outsider) has a single confirmed moment of IBWO field experience.

Hey hgr389 - did you check out this little alumni association article: http://www.su.edu/temp_news.cfm?urlnum=542

These folks were not Cornell team members, are very experienced and reliable birders, and seem to have three "confirmed with each other" moments of IBWO field experience.

And I agree with Tim - this is a silly thread kept going by a couple of folks with little to say and fed by those of us who can't stop ourselves from responding to the little said. Barbara

 

[timeshadowed]

And I agree with Tim - this is a silly thread kept going by a couple of folks with little to say and fed by those of us who can't stop ourselves from responding to the little said. Barbara

I tend to agree with both Tim and Barb!

In internet speak - what these two folks are REALLY doing is called "Trolling for Responses". They ignore the absurdity of their own words - even when it is pointed out to them.

(See my response the absurity of comparing the IBWO with Bigfoot sightings in this same thread.)

TimeShadowed

 

[affe22]

I agree with all three of you, but it keeps my day interesting at least. Plus, it is interesting to see how some view science and scientists with, from what I can tell, no real scientific background.

 

[Snowy1]

I also agree this is a useless thread kept alive by 1 or 2 people that just want to up hits at their own personal websites. Hopefully the moderator will just remove it - my last post.

 

[hgr389]

Hey hgr389 - did you check out this little alumni association article: http://www.su.edu/temp_news.cfm?urlnum=542

Barbara,

Yes, I had seen that story before. Some parts of the story trouble me.

Some key parts:
----
After consultation, Simpson, Mulqueen, and Trochet were asked to join the official search and were told of the earlier sightings.

“We said we’d help, as long as we could go to the areas we wanted,” Simpson said. After all, she pointed out, it was their vacation.

“We had to sign a confidentiality agreement,” Simpson said.
...
At 8 a.m., Simpson was throttling back the motor as Mulqueen threw a rope around a cypress knee, when Trochet heard a drumming sound. Simpson heard it too. They looked east toward the sound and “a large, dark bird flew from where we heard it. It flew 120 degrees around us. I saw the markings. I saw the bill. I saw it land,” Simpson said. “It was definitely a male,” since it had the distinctive red crest.

Thanks to cell phones, Simpson was able to contact Sparling to report the sighting and the location.

Sparing told them their first job was to try to get a photo.

“In the bird world, that confirms everything,” Simpson explained.

He also told them their second job and their third job was to get a photo.

“We sat there 3 1/2 hours trying to get a photo,” she said.

“But we never saw it again,” Mulqueen added.
----

Ok, so they apparently joined the official search, and even had a sighting that may be credible. So why aren't any of the three listed anywhere in Cornell's "Meet the Search Team" page?
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/story8.htm

And if John Fitzpatrick thought their sighting was credible, why didn't it make the Big 7 sightings listed in the Cornell paper? If sightings of the "one-person, 100-meter, naked-eye, fly-by" ilk can make the Big 7, why didn't this one make it?

The way this story is written, it also sounds like Simpson wasn't aware that she should get a photo until *after* she saw the bird. That makes no sense.

 

[thatmagicguy]

Hi, Two points.

1. It wasn't included in the report because by their own admission, the Cornell personel do not recognize lay-people's sightings as credible. Mr Sparling's sighting would not have been taken seriously if Tim Gallagher hadn't made a case back at Cornell. And by Cornell's standards, a lay-person is anyone who is not studying at or employed by Cornell.

2. It is hard to imagine, being a bird lover, that someone could be in this situation as this woman was and not have a camera aimed. It is easy. Even the Cornell grad students who spotted the bird did not have cameras ready. But once again, quoting Sparling seems to indicate that she didn't know to photograph it,,,but no where in the article did it indicate she didn't know to photograph it,,she just wasn't prepared to actually have a sighting. She wasn't prepared the same way Tim Gallagher and Bobby Harrison weren't prepared when they saw it,,even though their prime reason to be on the cache was to verify Sparling's sighting. Cornell person and photographer professor not being prepared with a camera. It's easy for us to be critical after the fact sitting at our computers,,,but even I find myself in the swamps here in florida without a camera,,and I am consumed with finding "the bird", Bill

 

[hgr389]

For those of you that are true believers, Laura Erickson has written up some good posts at:

http://birdwatching.birderblog.com/

If you'd prefer not to read an opposing viewpoint, please don't click any links that mention my name (Tom Nelson).

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Laura Erickson's post is such a compelling summary, that I don't feel there's much more to say. Certainly there's nothing I can say that probably won't be bleeped by the moderator.

At this point I bow out of this "debate."

 

[Katy Penland]

Just as a reminder, please comment on the blog on the blog's site and keep BF's bandwidth for BF members and their opinions. If you feel you must quote from a blog, please cut-n-paste the relevant portion into your post here rather than just posting off-site links. Thanks.

 

[curunir]

As you may have guessed, I actually wasn't referring to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker above. I was referring to Bigfoot. Just for the record, I'm skeptical of the existence of either species.

Bigfoot probably qualifies in the extraordinary proof category, along with Sasquatch. The Ivorybill probably falls into a lesser category, along with Mexican Grizzlies, Imperial and Cuban Campephilus, and Eskimo Plovers. I can say I might have seen bigfoot once after working in northwest California for about 15 years. I still give the big pecker 95% chance of being around, probably higher after this years AOU meeting. Bigfoot, less than 1%.

 

[timeshadowed]

"If you'd prefer not to read an opposing viewpoint, please don't click any links that mention my name (Tom Nelson)."

HGR,

Why do you even continue posting your ludicrous ideas of doubt about the existence of the IBWO here on BirdForum?

Why are you so convinced that the IBWO is EXTINCT?!?

I have not seen any hard EVIDENCE presented in any of your posts that would convince me that the IBWO was indeed EXTINCT. Rather, all you seem to be doing here on BirdForum is TROLLING.

Why do you continue to post statements that are only meant to inflame and not inform?

TimeShadowed

 

[affe22]

I think everyone should listen to the audio recordings, not just the IBWP ones, all of them. It is interesting how you could hear the two note drop in pitch on the IBWP recordings, how similar this was to the 1930s recordings and how much alike the double knocks sounded to other species in the Genus. It seems that they did record something producing sounds of an IBWP. Whether or not it was one, I guess some are still undecided.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I downloaded and installed the free player -- now what? Clicking on the sound icons does nothing. What do I have to do to get them to play?

Edited to add: OK, the "analyzer" program is a dud. Simple Sounds works.

Edited further to add: I can't get the Jan 31, 2005, "kent" calls to work at all. Can anybody? The sound file never loads for me.

 

[hgr389]

Laura Erickson's post is such a compelling summary, that I don't feel there's much more to say. Certainly there's nothing I can say that probably won't be bleeped by the moderator.

At this point I bow out of this "debate."

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."

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.