-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker continued (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter motiheal
- Start date
- Status
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
if that refers to my post above, you clearly understand little of the nature of acquiring knowledge - I was actually providing a basis whereby IB searchers could argue that it is a matter of communication and working in different paradigms that characterise the struggle to convince the wider world of their sightings rather than a lack of veracity.
When one writes a hypothesis all one proves is that the hypothesis exists.
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
I object to the unfair way you two gauge sentiment and evidence in the last 2 IB threads. In these threads of 22 pages there have only been 5 or 6 people having actual IB search field experience ; All say the bird is:
EXTANT and have listed various experiences, points, evidence, and studies. Over the hundreds of posts they either stated or inferred they have seen the bird or know nuances about the bird that show some acceptable familiarity with the species.
There has been no short let alone point by point rebuttals to the several recent peer reviewed papers on the IB inclusive of ~ 25 sets of field notes with drawings, at least 7 videos of perched and flying birds, audio of hundreds of kents and double knocks, a unique recording of a previously unrecorded call, many IB-like roost cavities, unique IB-like foraging marks and more. The discovered and restored Imperial Woodpecker films also has cleared up various things about flight dynamics of the genus as predicted by some while showing blatant errors to key ID points made carelessly by public skeptics in writing and subsequently abandoned.
These facts have caused two state RBA committees to subsequently change their IBWO official checklist comments (AR and LA) to status present and uncertain respectively. The species is on the USFWS species list, as endangered NOT EXTINCT. The USFWS and Recovery Plan committee consisting of over 85 people from pertinent occupations, Universities, departments, NGOs, institutions, skeptics, etc. formally and in writing rejected a short and flawed note doubting the AR sightings. Note that some skeptics begged to be on the comitt. even thought they were psuedoskeptics afraid of their own projects receiving less funding. The AR RBC accepted the presence of the species in AR circa 2005 via unanimous vote with no formal retraction. USFWS authorized and completed a recovery plan ~ 10 years ago. ABA has also stated it is waiting for further info before it changes its status and presently calls the species probably extinct or extinct. CITES/IUCN has also noted the recent sightings and evidence upgrading its status and does not call the species extinct.
In conclusion there is no official voting committee of the several that has changed its status in a negative direction towards extinction but at least 3 have changed the status to an improved level of present or uncertain.
Unless Cajunuma is some unknown acronym of a committee its/hers/his 2 sentence analysis calling people insane if they see some good evidence and proof is rejected as being completely inappropriate, inadequate and not worthy of further comment.
The 5 who have participated in these threads with field experience have collectively conversed with others that are also in the field; many others not here have knowledge that the IB exists and that an undetermined but perhaps very low number of birds exist. These 5 made the most substantive posts of all the posters with a few skeptics engaging, reluctantly.
There has been minimal field data either negative or positive presented by the other 25 posters. Most of these posters do not seem to have any experience at all in searching for IBs or Pileateds and may be listers and/or feeder birders. In general they refuse to answer any questions; are in general unaware of the evidence for or against IBs.
They monolithically believe the only data set acceptable is a clear photo and refuse to acknowledge or carefully review basic direct video, audio, roost and ecological data and inferential points triggered by this evidence from over 30 field witnesses associated with the published papers. Additional recent sightings not in papers but in internet sources, blogs, personal field books, studies, federal data banks, word of mouth, personal communications, etc. numbers ~ 75 to 100 sightings/detections. Many of these are from the same locations as the papers, meaning there has been replication of sightings over time but count duplication of the same bird(s) on different dates. SC has brief sightings and some excellent detections but no papers. On BF a recent description of a peer reviewed paper from 1971 and associated collected feathers, the only one able to be IDed by an ornithologist as from an IB, after years of seeing IBs at the same FL site along with the collection of an associated IB cavity met with various vague and baseless denials of this direct evidence on BF.
Most have therefore forfeited any claim to being vigorous and impartial reviewers of sightings papers and evidence for mostly unknown reasons. These reasons possibly being some combination of the following: ingrained by various simple but rigid rules of RBC committees (that they have confused with science), rejection of science, cumbersome nature of the evidence, jealousy, entrenchment, unusual circumstance for them but not necessarily of many scientists of having no frame filling picture to quickly judge the simple claim of presence, poor quality of the videos providing an easy excuse to not look at all the evidence inclusive of what the videos do show, the erroneous belief that pictures of IB away from a nest exist (there is no such picture), this is not an easy tick, failure to get in the field even though some birds lingered at localities for years, each bird has very large home range and is vagile, lack of a conservation ethic, belief that saving the IB takes away from other projects, competition for limited conservation funds, time constraints, lack of good computers/large screen, lack of video artifact knowledge, lack of field experience with the confusing species, lack of field experience and ecological knowledge of the subject species, lack of flight dynamics knowledge, lack of ecological knowledge of SE US forests, lack of knowledge on the potential rapidity of behavioral changes in small populations, lack of knowledge on the onset and survivability of inbreeding and genetic drift, laziness, bullying, peer pressure, group think, ill-defined or no understanding of true skepticism and its responsibilities, cyber-cesspool effect, followers of various well known skeptics, varying formats of the available data, in general and in their defense the time/work needed to carefully look at the extensive evidence.
Most or all posters were unaware that the Cuban IB sightings of 1986 -88, at the time quite a rediscovery event with similarities, was globally accepted without much objection. Cuba had miniscule evidence compared to the recent US IB sightings. The disparity was significant in the following areas per poster DD on BF: number of sightings, field notes submitted, range of data sets (video, audio of kents and knocks, roost measurements, bark scaling etc.). One BF poster eventually agreed with the double standard/inconsistency and rejected the Cuban IB of actually being rediscovered circa 1987. Note that the Cuban IB and US IB are almost certainly different species and the Cuban species is likely extinct. The Cuban IB accepted sightings and articles had J. Jackson as one of the possible sighters and proponents and authors involved with the Cuban "rediscovery". Unfortunately Jackson did not recognize his scientific inconstancies when he doubted with no new negative data, the AR IB sightings, evidence and paper of 2004-5 (he was unhappy about being left out of the loop on this event, despite being accepted as the world authority on IBs), with various, odd emotional arguments even thought the AR evidence dwarfed what he had personally approved as completely acceptable in Cuba as evidence 16 years prior. The Cuban species had not been reported or photo'd in 20 years and no photos or audio recording exists of the alleged flying birds of 1987, seen for a few seconds with crows chasing, a possible confusing species.
Last edited:
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
Maybe it’s just getting lost in all the words but for the sake of clarity and in a spirit of willingness to accommodate the less experienced
1. can you please post to this thread a link to the video and photos of the sightings of 2004-5?
Hopefully then it will give those of us here who havent seen them yet an opportunity to look at them for ourselves?
I have also asked before on several occasions (but was met with derision),
2. when exactly, according to your evidence, was the last definite sighting of IB or the last definite recording of calls?
Please, just a short answer version!
Last edited:
Hi Mike,
Exactly. The claim that the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker can be identified by characteristics wing beat frequencies on the basis of one very short film clip lacks any basis in aerodynamics, as is evident from the very same article by Tobalske you try to use to prove your point, and your stochastic analysis is worthless because you mis-apply the mathematics.
That has been pointed out to you more than a year ago, and your reply was ... well, about ten times, you ignored this, one time you said you'd look into this, then ignored it, and one time you pretended I was asking an unintelligible question, then ignored it.
As I'm sure you know as well as anyone else here on this forum, ignoring inconvenient criticism is not exactly the hallmark of good science ...
Regards,
Henning
Exactly. The claim that the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker can be identified by characteristics wing beat frequencies on the basis of one very short film clip lacks any basis in aerodynamics, as is evident from the very same article by Tobalske you try to use to prove your point, and your stochastic analysis is worthless because you mis-apply the mathematics.
That has been pointed out to you more than a year ago, and your reply was ... well, about ten times, you ignored this, one time you said you'd look into this, then ignored it, and one time you pretended I was asking an unintelligible question, then ignored it.
As I'm sure you know as well as anyone else here on this forum, ignoring inconvenient criticism is not exactly the hallmark of good science ...
Regards,
Henning
Purported Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Arkansas, 25 April, 2004 (D. Luneau).
Null expectation: Pileated Woodpecker...
Null expectation: Pileated Woodpecker...
LOL.
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
You have posted a video of a video and the quality of the original video is better. And your little attempt at mis-leading viewers is not needed with YOUR opinion of what the null is.
The null in this area at the time for any birder passing on gen to another birder would be:
: Pileated is the null large woodpecker in area but there are CLAIMED IBWO IN AREA, CLAIMED By SEVERAL,
The video was taken in an area where the only IBWO, with multiple sight reports that year in the US, was seen by at least 20 people including various scientists. Several double knocks and kents were also recorded in area over the years while none were reported from other areas in Arkansas (AR)
Is there ever a time when a pseudoskeptic must not bias his audience out of fear by 1) posting a lower quality video than one available and 2) needs to plop in their misleading opinion on what the null hypothesis is.
This is one sided, antiscience behaviour already mentioned as one of the failings of pseudoskeptics as again they try and bias or shut down a fair sunlighting of evidence.
By the way most listers like to keep the rare bird in the realm of possibilities and not eliminated by silliness and being told a species is improbable, unprecedented or impossible. Most world birders and rare chasers do not take seriously the use of the self defeating null theory to weaken the chances of IDing a rare on their own. Why would we even look for rares if we were heavily governed by nulls? Ask Crossley.
Last edited:
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
HERE below is original video link (need to see original paper of all evidence) on the AR event of 15 years ago. Rob H please remove your inferior link since below works. thank you
In addition subsequent evidence was gathered of IB in area post publication but its thought bird may have been shoot. Notice in the video that the bird is flying fairly level, it's the camera that is mounted poorly on the horizontal.
Wing beat HZ for all videos of PIWO quickly drops to 5.6/s post takeoff. Imperial films confirms even larger Campephilus is 8.1 Hz and the AR subject video is ~ 8.4 Hz for entire. Also notice minimal wing bounding of bird in video. Wing bounding causes most woodpeckers, some finches and other birds to have a slight to noticeable undulating flight line. All PIWO videos (n = thousands) show wing bounding within 2.5 seconds of takeoff.
Also notice the substantial white on both ventral and dorsal sides of wings. Note also in the paper, with photos, there is a bird clinging vertically to a trunk with a white wing saddle, wide shoulders, small amount of white on neck before the flight sequence. The poorly resolved white saddled woodpecker, almost surely the same bird, is gone from prior perch by the time the flight sequence occurs (same bird). Both woodpecker perch spots were visited later and found to have had a woodpecker of 20 inches length. PIWO is 16 in. IBWO is 20 in.
Supporting Online Material | Science
MovieS1
Last edited:
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
Note that Movie S1 was totally recreated in the exact AR river location, with IB and PIWO models, that flapped and the same camera model with the same auto focus settings was used to examine the results. The results are in the Science paper and fully support that the video showed the pattern of the IB model and not the PIWO model. The birds have quite different wing patterns of black and white. The camera sitting on the canoe attached to a large baterry had been set to autofocus that had settled on part of the canoe.
All pertinent trees were measured and the subject two perching spots were found to have a bird of 20 inches in length.
IMHO there are only 3 videos of putative IBs that one can become comfortable with as IBWOs on their own. Some other videos likely show IBWOs, as the videographer IDed them in the field as IBs. Meaning you need to accept that the videographer correctly IDed the birds in the field this being somewhat confirmed (or weakly confirmed?) in that the videos show a large bird with much white on wings but not much more. There are also ambient videos that a bird was only discovered upon review of the videos and the bird was not even seen in the field. There are also other poor quality videos that were not heavily weighted or weighted at all in any papers except one or two papers by Collins in LA and FL (Louisiana, Florida).
Note that all videos above were taken in areas that had claims of IBs before and after videos by multiple observers in areas that had relatively intact riparian corridors that were of .75 - ~ 3 miles width with all all being over 70 miles long of ~ one hundred thousand acres or more. Supporting audio and other pertinent data sets were collected from all 3 areas in AR, LA and FL. SC also had/has a few birds but no continuous video attempts have been made by teams of more than a week there ~ 10 years ago and since an no videos exist from SC. Various people including some surprised sketics have seen birds well In SC and other states.
thanks
Last edited:
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
Original Arkansas USA paper Ivory-billed Persists link
Selected additional Remsen publications available as pdfs: (lsu.edu)
And Si video link again
Supporting Online Material | Science
MovieS1
THIS VIDEO SHOULD BE SEEN THE LARGEST MONITOR you can get. When Cornell showed our group this video it was on a large screen, making the image life size. This makes it evident the bird's wings have much white at all angles and most frames. Also notice the steady wing beat, no wing binding and various non PIWO looking charactersitics.
Last edited:
Hello 1TruthSeeker
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my earlier linking of the Luneau footage.
This was in response to a request upthread: I acknowledge that video of a video isn’t the best for forensic analysis; it was the best I could find in a brief window in my lunch break. And thanks for signposting to better footage.
As for ‘null expectation’, this was simply shorthand for the eminently reasonable position that any large black-and-white woodpecker in the IBWO (former) range this century would be a Pileated unless definitively proven otherwise. And the ellipsis is reference to the ensuing years of debate, analysis, BF mudslinging and, well, take a look and make up your own mind. I make no judgement on this, or any other evidence, or those who have gone to great lengths to apply the scientific method to bring the ghost bird into the realm of the living. Torn on The Bayou…
I’m rooting for the Lord God Bird and those with the conviction to continue questing for the Grail Bird. I really am. I would be the first in the queue for a big ol' slice of humble pie if Lazurus returns from (seemingly) beyond the grave…but only if served with cool whip or will…take custard at a push.
Best, Rob
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my earlier linking of the Luneau footage.
This was in response to a request upthread: I acknowledge that video of a video isn’t the best for forensic analysis; it was the best I could find in a brief window in my lunch break. And thanks for signposting to better footage.
As for ‘null expectation’, this was simply shorthand for the eminently reasonable position that any large black-and-white woodpecker in the IBWO (former) range this century would be a Pileated unless definitively proven otherwise. And the ellipsis is reference to the ensuing years of debate, analysis, BF mudslinging and, well, take a look and make up your own mind. I make no judgement on this, or any other evidence, or those who have gone to great lengths to apply the scientific method to bring the ghost bird into the realm of the living. Torn on The Bayou…
I’m rooting for the Lord God Bird and those with the conviction to continue questing for the Grail Bird. I really am. I would be the first in the queue for a big ol' slice of humble pie if Lazurus returns from (seemingly) beyond the grave…but only if served with cool whip or will…take custard at a push.
Best, Rob
Last edited:
raymie
Well-known member
I have looked for this video before but have never been able to find it. It looks just like every Pileated I've ever seen, the black border on the edges of the wings seem to rule out Ivory-billed right away.
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
You are likely looking at the black tips of the wings on the upstroke or darker background against white wing areas. Provide multiple screen captures or frame numbers or times.
And how do you explain the mostly white ventral wing surface?
And how do you explain the substantial white on the dorsal trailing wing surface?
How do you explain the split white near tips with the black center area on ventral wing surface?
How do you explain the white wing saddled bird vertically perched before it moves before the flight sequence?
How do you explain the wing beat HZ not fitting any PIWO video at 2 to 4 secs post takeoff? PIWO are common where is the video of them flapping over 8 HZ per S.
Where is the wing bounding of the subject bird if a PIWO?
How do you explain two perched bird views in several frames showing a 20 inch long bird upon study?
How do you explain the white saddled bird no longer being at the original position when the bird flys from low tree?
How do you explain the relatively robust body compared to PIWO? IB weighs twice as much as PI but has the same wing span meaning the chest is proportional larger in IBs?
How do you explain respective bird models videoed with same exact camera model and setting as in field match the IB conclusion and not PI?
How do you explain the many sets of field notes, some with multiple concurrent observers ?
How do you explain the many double knocks, some signaling back and forth. Some heard by humans and ARUs.
more.
thanks
Original Arkansas USA paper Ivory-billed Persists link
Selected additional Remsen publications available as pdfs: (lsu.edu)
And Si video link again
Supporting Online Material | Science
MovieS1
THIS VIDEO SHOULD BE SEEN WITH THE LARGEST MONITOR you can get.
Last edited:
Tired
Well-known member
You know, people don't tend to like others being rude to them. Even if you believe that someone is saying the most foolish thing in the world, insulting them is only going to make them less likely to listen to you. It's also going to make anyone else who sees your posts less likely to read what you're saying, if they start reading it and immediately encounter vitriol.
Hi,
I couldn't agree more.
However, the explanation for the aggressiveness we're facing on many internet platforms is that many people are not actually interested in an exchange of opinions, but only in asserting dominance of their preferred world view.
Thus, rudeness in the vast majority of cases is not (just) an "innocent" by-product of excessive emotional engagement, but a weapon wielded to create an unpleasant experience for anyone not sharing the aggressive poster's opinion, in the hope that this will shut them up. Annoying people is much easier than to convince them, and asserting dominance over well-intentioned people on a random internet forum is not nearly as difficult as proving the survival of the probably extinct species.
Regards,
Henning
I couldn't agree more.
However, the explanation for the aggressiveness we're facing on many internet platforms is that many people are not actually interested in an exchange of opinions, but only in asserting dominance of their preferred world view.
Thus, rudeness in the vast majority of cases is not (just) an "innocent" by-product of excessive emotional engagement, but a weapon wielded to create an unpleasant experience for anyone not sharing the aggressive poster's opinion, in the hope that this will shut them up. Annoying people is much easier than to convince them, and asserting dominance over well-intentioned people on a random internet forum is not nearly as difficult as proving the survival of the probably extinct species.
Regards,
Henning
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
It worked on me - Despite watching again the intriguing lecture by John Fitzpatrick and associated videos, I have lost interest in finding out anymore from IBWO seekers about their arguments supporting the possible survival of IBs and that to me does more injustice to the memory of this once thriving and enigmatic species than anything else I can think off (as well as making me resistant to some of the arguments that might otherwise convince me of its survival at least until relatively recently). Anyone that works in the field Conservation as I do, and fighting against the extinction of species, knows that it is sad enough without all this unnecessary acrimony and hostility directed at people that hope as sincerely as you do that a species still survives ☹️
Brian J Small
Well-known member
Here is the link to the USFWS used as evidence by Truthseeker - https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/100719.pdf
If you read it carefully, it can hardly be used as strong evidence for IB's continued existence. There is however a lot of interesting reading. Below a quote:-
'Searches have taken place in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, western Tennessee, Mississippi, southern Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida. While suggestive evidence has been found in several states, no clear, conclusive photograph or video has been made as of the date of this writing.'
Brian
If you read it carefully, it can hardly be used as strong evidence for IB's continued existence. There is however a lot of interesting reading. Below a quote:-
'Searches have taken place in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, western Tennessee, Mississippi, southern Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida. While suggestive evidence has been found in several states, no clear, conclusive photograph or video has been made as of the date of this writing.'
Brian
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
From recovery Plan page 2:
Compelling evidence of the species’ existence was obtained when the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was reported in Arkansas and presented by Fitzpatrick et al. (2005). On February 11, 2004, kayaker Gene Sparling observed a large woodpecker with characteristics of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas. The encounter spurred an extensive search led by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and the Arkansas Nature Conservancy. In 2004 and 2005 observers reported multiple sightings and recorded audio and video interpreted to be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker within the same area as Sparling along Bayou DeView, located in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in east-central Arkansas. Interpretation of the video has been challenged by others (Jackson 2006, Sibley et al. 2006).
End
USFWS ES Recovery Plans do NOT present evidence although some might be in there. For example you will not see much or anything about the book-like stack of evidence of Ivory-bills existence recently from Florida of ~ 4 birds by Auburn and Windsor University (many sets of field notes, hundred of knocks and kents by ARUs and people, videos, roost measurements) . You will not see much or any of the evidence from LA, Louisiana, by multiple researchers (Videos independently confirmed by peers as IBWO, several papers, audio, stills, field notes, field logs etc).
I assure you IBs existed after the Recovery Plan was out ten years ago. See upthread in last 2 threads by the way for comments on how skeptics watered down the effectiveness of the paid for surveys. The surveys used erroneous methods and relatively inexperienced surveyors. The whole thing was a typical government fiasco.
thank you
1TruthSeeker
Well-known member
I did not intend to or thought I presented the Recovery Plan as even a small part of the extensive evidence. If I did please let me clarify.
The very existence of a USFWS ES Recovery Plan means that compelling evidence by law MUST ALREADY EXIST, as it did. (see the Science paper, video above, audio of knocks, notes, reports, etc.). Evidence must and did exist to trigger the relatively minor public spending to produce a RP. So the RP is a derivative of prexisting strong evidence. Hope that clears that up.
In this case over 85 people on a committee had various functions involved with producing and approving the Recovery Plan. Some of these 85 desperately clamoring to get on for various reasons, mostly centered in Floyd's root of all evil, rather than in conservation. Recusal is based on introspective review and self governing truth and honesty and we know how that goes. Even the THE TIMBER/ Paper industry was on the committee (ask me another time what the timber industry did in relation to a known IB site).
This conservation by committee, some being pseudo skeptics with selfish motives, caused watering down of survey methods into some big neotropical migrant survey party. Much more to this.
Brian thanks for bringing up any ambiguity.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
