New Ivory-billed Woodpecker info (1 Viewer)

[Hauksen]

Hi Peter,

Routine, daily, we can still get it wrong, in the blink of an eye.
Camera focuses on a branch in the background etc.

He had one job to do. If he'd tried but failed, he'd had my sympathy.

However, he didn't try in the first place, and he passes over that failure as if it weren't worth mentioning.

If he'd used the viewfinder, focusing on the bird, and maybe even zooming in, he might have just the photograph needed to show what the bird he saw actually was.

In my opinion, he needs to provide a good explanation for why he didn't make that attempt when his declared objective was to find evidence for the survival of an extinct bird.

Regards,

Henning

 

[fishcrow]

The comments from the usual know-it-alls reveal that they have never stepped foot into the habitats of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and have no idea what it's like to search for this bird. It's ignorant to suggest that those who have reported these birds and/or obtained evidence have engaged in fraud or have any motive other than trying to help document a critically endangered (and remarkably elusive) species in the interest of conservation. Anyone with a brain would realize that esteemed ornithologists such as John Fitzpatrick and Geoff Hill (both recipients of the highest honor in the field of ornithology) would never participate in such nonsense. For those who are interested in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its conservation and are capable of thinking independently, a paper describing the five most compelling events that have been captured on video and other issues relevant to the conservation of this bird are described this paper that recently came out.

 

[Richard D]

The comments from the usual know-it-alls reveal that they have never stepped foot into the habitats of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and have no idea what it's like to search for this bird. It's ignorant to suggest that those who have reported these birds and/or obtained evidence have engaged in fraud or have any motive other than trying to help document a critically endangered (and remarkably elusive) species in the interest of conservation. Anyone with a brain would realize that esteemed ornithologists such as John Fitzpatrick and Geoff Hill (both recipients of the highest honor in the field of ornithology) would never participate in such nonsense. For those who are interested in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its conservation and are capable of thinking independently, a paper describing the five most compelling events that have been captured on video and other issues relevant to the conservation of this bird are described this paper that recently came out.

The sad fact is none of the events are that compelling. I'm open-minded enough to accept that there is an extremely slim chance that one or two individuals might have been missed, but without any remotely clear video/photo evidence or feather finds given the year's of researchthe chances of anyone finding a breeding population don't look much better than for Great Auks.

 

[Farnboro John]

The comments from the usual know-it-alls reveal that they have never stepped foot into the habitats of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and have no idea what it's like to search for this bird. It's ignorant to suggest that those who have reported these birds and/or obtained evidence have engaged in fraud or have any motive other than trying to help document a critically endangered (and remarkably elusive) species in the interest of conservation. Anyone with a brain would realize that esteemed ornithologists such as John Fitzpatrick and Geoff Hill (both recipients of the highest honor in the field of ornithology) would never participate in such nonsense. For those who are interested in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its conservation and are capable of thinking independently, a paper describing the five most compelling events that have been captured on video and other issues relevant to the conservation of this bird are described this paper that recently came out.

You appear to be suggesting that scientists have never been hoodwinked. The scientific record doesn't bear that out, so lets just get back to get a clear photo or forget it. I look forward to seeing one, though it does seem that what you need is not so much IBWO believers as competent photographers/videographers.

John

 

[amears]

Roger TP, writing in 1956 about his 1941 sighting of ‘the last two females in the Singer Tract’:
‘It was easy to track them, for as soon as they landed after a flight, they betrayed their location by their curious tooting notes. When they flew, they pitched off on a straight line, like ducks, their wings making a wooden sound. After we had followed them for nearly an hour they made a long flight and we could not find them again.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Mike,

The comments from the usual know-it-alls reveal that they have never stepped foot into the habitats of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and have no idea what it's like to search for this bird.

I don't need ever to have been to a circus to know there's a sucker born every minute!

I notice that your new publication still perpetuates the flap rate fallacy.

Allow me to point out AGAIN that your failing at college-level math there.

To refresh your memory, you <edit:>threw</edit> the towel in January by not responding to this rather specific criticism:

Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises

Hi Mike, Yet another sophomoric comment from someone who is incapable of actually addressing the evidence. If you're into addressing all of an sudden, you might want to address this issue which you've been evading for a couple of years right now...

www.birdforum.net

"Anyone with a spine", to paraphrase a popular pseudo-scientist, would have manned up and tried to defend that, but you just fade away and come back with trash talk like ...

Anyone with a brain

I am sure you are way more skilled forum mudwrestling than I am, but if you rely on insults rather than on math to defend your "paper", that's pretty revealing for anyone interested in the degree of your intellectual honesty.

Regards,

Henning

 

[Andy Lakin]

I'm amazed AFAIK that there hasn't been a series on the hunt for any remaining IBW. If you watch some of the Bigfoot stuff they spend vast amounts of money on technology and many man hours with no credible evidence surfacing. Not knocking people searching at all, it would be brilliant to watch the quest develop and result in a positive outcome.

 

[Mono]

If we could stick to the evidence, or lack there of, rather than resorting to personal insults that would be great.

 

[KC Foggin]

Well said Mono!

 

[Jack Dawe]

they ... have no idea what it's like to search for this bird

You're missing the point. That's irrelevant to the present discussion. We're not talking about searching for the bird; we're talking about producing an incontrovertible photograph when one is found. People have managed that before with far less sophisticated equipment than that available today. Just do it.

 

[Snowy1]

The comments from the usual know-it-alls reveal that they have never stepped foot into the habitats of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and have no idea what it's like to search for this bird. It's ignorant to suggest that those who have reported these birds and/or obtained evidence have engaged in fraud or have any motive other than trying to help document a critically endangered (and remarkably elusive) species in the interest of conservation. Anyone with a brain would realize that esteemed ornithologists such as John Fitzpatrick and Geoff Hill (both recipients of the highest honor in the field of ornithology) would never participate in such nonsense. For those who are interested in the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its conservation and are capable of thinking independently, a paper describing the five most compelling events that have been captured on video and other issues relevant to the conservation of this bird are described this paper that recently came out.

Agree, well-said. There are too many people who haven’t made in-depth searches in that habitat making comments as though they are fully aware of all the facts surrounding the Ivorybill. We simply don’t have the ability to thoroughly cover the entire former range of the bird and it’s habitat adequately. People expect front page quality photos everyday…that’s not going to happen. I’ve come to learn that many skeptics like to poke and fan the forum for no reason that to stir it up, and I’ve learned to just read past it and carry on. To each his or her own view.

 

[Snowy1]

I should also point out it’s amazing Bobby Harrison got any video at all. I have to study it more, but I’m ot sure what else it might be. Nevertheless you can see simply by watching the video how fast and elusive most birds are in that scenario. Yes, I wish he would upgrade his camera, but when you watch that at full speed, getting anything in focus for more than a second would be a miracle.

 

[Jack Dawe]

People expect front page quality photos everyday…that’s not going to happen.

That's no excuse for wasting our time with this unbelievable rubbish. I don't think you are up to speed with what's possible these days. Get an incontrovertible photo and I'll start taking this seriously.

I should also point out it’s amazing Bobby Harrison got any video at all. I have to study it more, but I’m ot sure what else it might be.

A duck. It's not even flying like a woodpecker.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Snowy,

Agree, well-said. There are too many people who haven’t made in-depth searches in that habitat making comments as though they are fully aware of all the facts surrounding the Ivorybill.

My professional experience includes scam prevention. I find that's quite helpful when assessing the quality of the claims of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker crowd.

People expect front page quality photos everyday…that’s not going to happen.

It's not going to happen because there are no surviving Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers.

In the situation Harrison was in, I'd have gotten way better photographs with my 2010 vintage combination of a Sony Alpha 700 DSLR and a 50-500 mm Sigma tele zoom lens. I have taken tens of thousands of bird photographs, including birds in flight, and naturally not all of them were sharp, but there's absolutely no reason to end up with rubbish material like Harrison did unless you are unprepared and don't know what you're doing.

Harrison points out that he had 10 seconds of observation time. That's plenty of time to bring up the heavy DSLR/lens combination, take aim, focus, and rattle off a dozen shots easily. All it would have taken would have been a good camera rig, and the resolution to actually shoot a photograph of the bird.

Harrison obviously was lacking both. That's something that rings my professional alarm bells - someone talks the talk when he didn't walk the walk.

I’ve come to learn that many skeptics like to poke and fan the forum for no reason that to stir it up, and I’ve learned to just read past it and carry on. To each his or her own view.

The "skeptics" are the regular forum folks with actual birdwatching experience. The likes of you only show up whenever there's some spin to doctor regarding another woodpecker "paper". When was the last time you ever made a non-woodpecker related post on this forum (if ever)?

Regards,

Henning

 

[Andy Adcock]

Agree, well-said. There are too many people who haven’t made in-depth searches in that habitat making comments as though they are fully aware of all the facts surrounding the Ivorybill. We simply don’t have the ability to thoroughly cover the entire former range of the bird and it’s habitat adequately. People expect front page quality photos everyday…that’s not going to happen. I’ve come to learn that many skeptics like to poke and fan the forum for no reason that to stir it up, and I’ve learned to just read past it and carry on. To each his or her own view.

You make it sound as if this is a skulking, ground dwelling bird the size of a peanut.

 

[Sangahyando]

Maybe we should have an entire forum section devoted to this, the Thylacine, and Bigfoot et al. Would probably increase traffic on the site.

You make it sound as if this is a skulking, ground dwelling bird the size of a peanut.

A case of rapid evolution, adapting to hunting pressure and habitat changes...

 

[jurek]

What is unlikely here, is the lack of further confirmatory records from other people.

Woodpecker is sedentary, not a vagrant wader, which can rest for 5 minutes and then never visit this locality again. There should be more records from other people who visit the same areas. And some, by pure chance, with better gear and more luck should get sensible photographs.

 

[elkcub]

If we could stick to the evidence, or lack there of, rather than resorting to personal insults that would be great.

The fewer the facts the stronger the opinions...and the greater the insults.

Ed

 

[Andy Adcock]

The fewer the facts the stronger the opinions...and the greater the insults.

Ed

The only 'fact' is that whatever has been photographed, is absolutely, beyond doubt, unidentifiable.

 

[cheshirebirder]

The only 'fact' is that whatever has been photographed, is absolutely, beyond doubt, unidentifiable.

Doesn’t it have to be unidentifiable for this whole ”discussion “ to perpetuate ? Any indisputable photo of an IBW would be front page news and any claimed photo that was clearly something else would be laughed at.