Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (13 Viewers)

[Mike Johnston]

Do the claims on this site have an author who is willing to step forward?

Try the 'About' and 'Contact' links on the site.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Here's a sample of interesting quotes from the WorldTwitch site. These are all taken from an article by John Crewdson in the Chicago Tribune, May 19 2006 (here):

"Why in the world didn't they pass this around to a wide circle of people, mainly expert birders, before they went public with it?" [Bret] Whitney wonders now.

. . .

Funds for the preservation of endangered species were already stretched thin as the Iraq war and other events caused the federal deficit to rise. When the Interior Department came up with $5 million for a bird whose existence is evermore in question, it rankled biologists fighting to save threatened birds and animals that are known to exist.

"The $5 million," [Richard] Prum says, "is not new money," having been taken from already appropriated funds. "Projects are being canceled," Prum says. "Corners are being cut. Biologists are really upset about this."

"This year there was virtually no money," said a federal biologist responsible for saving a bird of which few people have heard, and who spoke only on condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job.

"My funding was cut completely last year," says a project manager in another part of the country who requested anonymity for the same reason. "We didn't just have a fuzzy videotape, we had the animals, and yet nobody really cared."

. . .

"I would not say absolutely, positively, 100 percent, that bird in the video is an ivory-bill. But I think that is the best explanation." [Certainly it's the "best explanation" to maintain employment and funding for the time being.]

-- Douglas Stotz, conservation ornithologist, Field Museum, Chicago

. . .

"The bird cannot be an ivory-billed woodpecker. Why? Because the bird exhibits black on the trailing edge of the wing."

-- Louis Bevier, Colby College

"The bird in the video is a normal pileated woodpecker, and to date there is no irrefutable data to indicate the presence of ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas."

-- Mark Robbins, University of Kansas

"I can't be sure what it is, but I can be sure it's not an ivory-billed woodpecker."

-- Bret Whitney, co-founder of Texas-based Field Guides, a leading birding tour company.

"I've never seen such awful documentation on any record. I just look at the video and say, 'God, it's hopeless.' It's hard for the human being, in such high-profile cases, to just relax and say, 'Well, maybe we made a mistake.'"

-- Jon Dunn, field ornithologist and chief consultant for the National Geographic Field Guide.

 

[kyanite]

Try the 'About' and 'Contact' links on the site.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

Even Tom Nelson puts his name where you can see it.

 

[Edward woodwood]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

Even Tom Nelson puts his name where you can see it.

John Wall

not hard to find out

Tim

 

[IBWO_Agnostic]

From Cyberthrush's Blog
“7. They utterly fail to comprehend the difficulty of getting photographic evidence”
------------------------------
From a comment on Tom Nelson's Site:
I still find this argument to be unreliable. Consider this: there have been an estimated > 400 IBWO specimens obtained. In most cases, these were obtained by using a small gauge shotgun, with perhaps #6 – 12 shot. Does anyone want to guess how close the collector had to get to make a kill with that popgun? Were the old-timers more stealthy?
-------------------------------

What are some alternative arguments to this reasonable response? Early on (pre 1900s) we could assume IBWOs were more abundant, but what about in the 1900-1940s. Numbers were very small, yet collectors still managed to find some. Sure, many were helped by locals that had known about the birds for decades, but that can't explain why it is so difficult now to get close enough for photos? Hell, the 'old-timers' probably didn't even have camo!

 

[70ivorybill78]

Posted by kyanite
Post * #5701
--------
Originally Posted by Mike Johnston
For those who haven't seen it yet, do log on to Peckergate: The Ivory-billed Woodpecker Hoax (here) on WorldTwitch. It gives a good summary of events and some interesting links.
----------
Do the claims on this site have an author who is willing to step forward?
Kyanite
---------
Kyanite, I can certainly discuss this sorry article indepth,

“The Little-Known Status and Distribution of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker”*
by Strix nebulosa

My report was used in this publication without my consent or knowledge, the report, along with many others was then summarily dismissed out of hand.

sincerely, Steve Sheridan

 

[fishcrow]

...you can't let a lack of good sightings in the past year...

What do you mean by a "good" sighting? I'm curious why you regard any of the Big Woods sightings as "good" but don't regard any of my sightings as "good." What is your reasoning? My own reasoning is different from that of most birders, who seem to put far too much weight on multiple observers. In my opinion, multiple sightings by a single observer are more significant because the observer gains experience with the species with each sighting.

 

[fishcrow]

The challenge you set would be difficult to meet when the profile doesn't seem all that well defined to start with.

The head, neck, and belly of the profile are well resolved. The ivorybill in Tanner's photo fits perfectly. There are gross differences in the pileated. If you can't see these differences, you might need to try a computer with a better monitor.

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Those of us who have either seen the bird or have sufficient common sense to evaluate evidence (including video, audio, and numerous reports of an easily identified species) have no interest in the existence debate. We prefer to discuss new information as it becomes available.

Then why won't you discuss your evidence with me? I've asked numerous questions, and repeatedly been ignored. I've asked about flap rates, I've asked about the PIWO vs. IBWO head analysis in your powerpoint (that is, the picture you are fitting the heads onto sure looks to me like it has a bushy crest), I've asked about the bird being backlit, I've asked about the new pictures that clearly show the underwing pattern, I've asked about how you explain the similar light/dark pattern seen on the trees in your video that resembles the pattern on the bird upperwing. There are definitely areas on the tree as light as--and even lighter--than the bird upperwing. The answer you repeatedly give is you only answer serious questions, or that the answer is staring me in the face. Sorry, I don't see it, I guess I need more guidance.

In my opinion, multiple sightings by a single observer are more significant because the observer gains experience with the species with each sighting.

True pseudoscience and circular reasoning. See Karl Popper: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html

 

[Edward woodwood]

you might answer this:

but I'm talking about six sightings in which I clearly saw key field marks.

it begs the question why no one is in there working with you, say all those experts and people from Cornell who have seen your evidence?

what reasons do they give to you?

Tim

and also MacGillivray's excellent questions which are very reasonable and you seem to be studiously ignoring, or running scared of.

 

[gws]

From cyberthrush's recent blog entry:

"8. They consistently OVERestimate the physical similarity between Ivory-bills and Pileateds concluding (almost insultingly) that experienced birders could repeatedly mistake one for the other."

Many of us grew up with Peterson's guides, and I wonder if that is part of the problem. He presented IBWO and PIWO with the same posture and basic outline, the size, neck and head profiles are insufficiently distinct, and one is left with the impression that the two species differ only in bill color and the distribution of white feathers, things even a good observer could get wrong.

But PIWO presents itself more like a large-format version of a smaller woodpecker species (think about that next time you see one) and reexamination of the historical accounts, never mind the recent reports, makes it clear that the first word in the field guide description of IBWO should be "unmistakable".

And this is what is lurking at the heart of the matter. It is one thing to focus on the Luneau video or other imagery and find insufficiently conclusive features for a formally accepted record, but quite another to dismiss the live sightings and declare the whole thing wrong. A sight record only, by a well qualified observer, is very difficult to dismiss even if it does not meet certain standards of proof i.e. a repeatable experiment. The rather bizarre notion of an aberrant leucistic PIWO is a polite cover story, what is really being suggested by some of Cornell's critics is professional incompetence or plain fraud. Let's hear that out loud, if that's what is thought.

Good, thoughtful post.

Indeed, some of those lucky enough to see a live ivorybill have said that it would be very hard to mistake it for anything else.

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

I've asked about the PIWO vs. IBWO head analysis in your powerpoint (that is, the picture you are fitting the heads onto sure looks to me like it has a bushy crest)

Just to clarify:

I can SEE the bushy crest sticking out from behind the superimposed IBWO head. Please explain how that is a perfect fit.

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Good, thoughtful post.

Indeed, some of those lucky enough to see a live ivorybill have said that it would be very hard to mistake it for anything else.

I agree, if you have a GOOD LOOK. If you can't get a picture of it, you aren't getting a good look. Even if you can't get close for a good picture, there should still be some distant photos. I seem to recall very recently, on another thread, multiple people admitting to terrible mistakes (i.e. plastic bag bird, stick bird, mud bird, etc...). I've seen way worse mis-ID's by birders with several years of experience, myself included.

 

[Big Phil]

Just to clarify:

I can SEE the bushy crest sticking out from behind the superimposed IBWO head. Please explain how that is a perfect fit.

If you squint your eyes and dim the monitor it looks a better fit.

 

[Neil Grubb]

The head, neck, and belly of the profile are well resolved. The ivorybill in Tanner's photo fits perfectly. There are gross differences in the pileated. If you can't see these differences, you might need to try a computer with a better monitor.

The limiting factor is the video res, not the monitor, which is high res and new. I doubt monitor quality makes much difference here.

Neil

 

[fishcrow]

The limiting factor is the video res, not the monitor, which is high res and new.

In that case, let's revert to this comment...

"The challenge you set would be difficult to meet when the profile doesn't seem all that well defined to start with."

I have met that challenge by finging a photo of a living ivorybill that is an excellent fit for the bird in my video. Everything lines up like a hand in a glove, from the head and bill, through the neck, all the way down to the belly. The photo of the specimen also lines up nicely. Do you not agree that the ivorybill overlays look good?

 

[Neil Grubb]

Do you not agree that the ivorybill overlays look good?

I have already been quite positive, although guarded, about your video. The overlays do look good, I have no problem saying that. I think the point on which we don't agree is whether the video shows sufficient sillhouette detail to be diagnostic and to differentiate. I'll watch your work with interest, it's been interesting stuff so far.

Neil

 

[Snowy1]

What do you mean by a "good" sighting? I'm curious why you regard any of the Big Woods sightings as "good" but don't regard any of my sightings as "good." What is your reasoning? My own reasoning is different from that of most birders, who seem to put far too much weight on multiple observers. In my opinion, multiple sightings by a single observer are more significant because the observer gains experience with the species with each sighting.

Don't get me wrong - it must be taken as a great set of sightings. I have no doubt that you saw what you say you saw. I believe you, as I've said from day one. From that alone, I believe you are on to something big in LA. However, if it was just the video that was given to me, with no other explanation, then I'd have a hard time knowing what I was looking at. I have to be honest, I cannot make out the field marks that have been pointed out, even after fangsheath's analysis. That's not to say that the bird is not an IBWO - if you say it is, then I believe you, because I don't think you'd have any reason to say otherwise considering how much time you spent at Stennis. So that may be a half-half answer to you, but it's all I can say from my point of view.

 

[pvs58]

Mike's Morpho study - crest comments

Just to clarify:

I can SEE the bushy crest sticking out from behind the superimposed IBWO head. Please explain how that is a perfect fit.

I think crest shape is quite variable in the Ivory-billed, where ragged crest or "duck-tailed' crest may appear... so that alone does not eliminate IBWO.
The fit is good for the IBWO but I'm not totally convinced I couldn't find an appropriately sized Pileated in the right posture, to also fit the bird.

The Pileated appears to scrunch his neck in some photos and none of these hunchback photos will fit Mike's video. Find a photo PIWO head and fit it to Mike's bird and you've debunked his morpho study... but nobody's done it yet.

Paul S

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

The photo of the specimen also lines up nicely. Do you not agree that the ivorybill overlays look good?

NO! I do NOT agree! Am I on Cinclodes ignore list or what? Look for yourselves, you can CLEARLY see the bushy crest sticking out behind the IBWO head overlay!

If that isn't a bushy crest, someone please tell me what it is!