New Ivory-billed Woodpecker info (1 Viewer)

[Mono]

It is the same in all cryptozoology, everyone obsesses about photos.

 

[elkcub]

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

Which means there are few facts and strong opinions, ... as in this statement.

I've seen some strong circumstantial evidence, however, so I'll keep an open mind for the time being.

Ed

 

[Andy Adcock]

Which means there are few facts and strong opinions, ... as in this statement.

I've seen some sItrong circumstantial evidence, however, so I'll keep an open mind for the time being.

Ed

Please expand, I hope you're not referring to the wing flap ratio?

There is IMHO, no value and certainly no 'evidence', circumstantial or otherwise, in any of the stuff I've seen.

 

[Dave Boyle]

I work on the recovery project of a bird that was formally declared extinct so I've got a bit of a professional interest in this & I've been trying to keep up to date since the recent crop of sightings started about 20 years ago. Most of its been, is nonsense too harsh a word?, but this is definitely worth a look before dismissing it.

Its an interesting video, its very long & pretty repetitive but I can see why people think it's an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. I don't know what it is & I definitely don't think the video is good enough to identify the bird, especially not something as important as an Ivory-bill but I'm happy to keep an open mind about it until someone can come up with a better explanation.

Some of the video analysis is nonsense, claiming to be able to see a crest & white line down the neck from the chosen frames is just wishful thinking & I'm not convinced the parts of the wing I'm being told I'm seeing are even the right surface of the wing sometimes. I'd like to look at it all again, I'm pretty sure there is a frame that shows at least the front part of the bird much better than the two he's chosen to analyse, maybe there's a reason for that. But plumage wise, its at least pretty close to an Ivory-bill & appears to be wrong for a Pileated Woodpecker, its just a shame its such poor quality. The biggest thing I'm struggling to understand, if it is an Ivory-bill, is why can't you see the big ivory bill?

I think there's been many things to be critical about over the years but claiming the fella should have got definitive photos from this sighting seems harsh - he would have definitely missed the first, closer pass & would have maybe got a distant shot of it disappearing, but more likely just a blurry photo of trees so I think he did exactly the right thing.

 

[jogresh]

I have some of the same thoughts as Dave, ie:
so far over the years I've seen nothing at all that's been worth a second look (or listen).
I don't think an ID can be made from this vid.
I've not listened to the commentary, just played the vid of the bird; some of the stills look a bit interesting and not immediately Pileated-esque to me.
Yes was also looking for and not seeing, a large pale bill 🤔🤷‍♂️

I find it very hard to imagine IBW still exists undiscovered. 🤔🦆

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Dave,

I think there's been many things to be critical about over the years but claiming the fella should have got definitive photos from this sighting seems harsh - he would have definitely missed the first, closer pass & would have maybe got a distant shot of it disappearing, but more likely just a blurry photo of trees so I think he did exactly the right thing.

Well, I didn't actually say "definitive", but "way better". That's not as difficult as it might seem, considering that I don't base my claim on any particular skill but simply on using appropriate technology ... a modern DSLR with a long tele lens. If you're interested, I could explain that in a more technical way, but since Harrison is suspiciously vague on the exact camera type and settings he used, it's not really worth it, in my opinion.

Suffice to say that when the bird is going away from me for five seconds, in a distance close enough to be captured as indistinct pixel heap on a video camera, I'm fully confident I can provide better results with my rig simply because it has a higher pixel count and a longer tele lens. My 12-year-old DSLR also has a very reliable "spot focus" option that in my experience is quite good when it comes to picking out the bird from the background when it's centered in the view finder, which is easy enough with a bird that's going away.

The point where I I definitely have to disagree with you is when you say. That's like "You can't fail if you don't try" ... my take is the opposite, not trying is an automatic fail. To be more specific: Anything that would have given him a chance of producing clear picture of the target bird would have been fantastically valuable to his cause, and just sitting there and not even trying basically guaranteed that he'd end up with worthless pictures.

And that's where I begin to have doubts about the entire story ... it's very hard to believe that Harrison truly identified the bird as "Ivory Billed Woodpecker" during the encounter, and then just sat there admiring the view without bothering to get a clear video of it. Supposedly, he's been trying for decades now to prove the bird's survival, and portrays the matter as urgent so that preservation measures can be taken. So missing his only chance in the past 15 years to accomplish his mission, with no explanation given what inspired him to epically fail? No way I'm going to buy that.

Regards,

Henning

 

[Dave Boyle]

Sorry Hauksen, I still think you're being incredibly harsh with this! Assuming I'm remembering what he said correctly, he was in a canoe with a sony videocamera already running - the bird, whatever it is, suddenly appears out the trees crossing in front of him & he chose to keep the videocamera running & watch it with his naked eye

First off he would have had to put the videocamera down & taken his eye off the bird, he's in a canoe so maybe his DSLR is already packed away, even if its not by the time he'd have picked it up again he'd have missed the closer fly-by, then he has to find the bird in the viewfinder & hope the autofocus locks on to the bird - if he's lucky the camera is already focused to roughly the right distance, otherwise all he'd see is a green out of focus blur & he's got to try & track a rapidly moving bird he can't see anymore while the camera's autofocus hunts for something to focus on & all there is then is a distant black & white bird against a background of dappled trees - I've got a pretty decent DSLR & lens too, but I know my camera would have just picked up on the trees & I'd have missed it completely & I'd be wishing I'd just left the videocamera running.

 

[pppppvvvv]

This is what I was trying to put across a few posts/days ago.
I'm not adding anything to what the bird was or wasn't, but you can't draw anything from the fact the footage was naff.
Among the best birds I've found, are ones with no photos to back up the sighting.
One on a small boat where I don't think I even touched my camera in the brief encounter, one where I was watching the bird thru my telephoto and it flew as I was slowly pushing the shutter!
No one is in a permanent state of readiness to instantly photo/video anything that flies past.

 

[Mono]

Rather than paddle around with a camera strapped to something, desperate to get "the photo", why not spend a week or two finding possible nesting holes. The nesting habit is well described. Get some feathers, get some DNA, there are ample reference samples. A proper research effort doing proper science.

Part of me thinks some of the "IBW is extant" community want dodgy pictures so they can keep the dream alive whilst secretly knowing that the bird is no more.

 

[Dave Boyle]

Rather than paddle around with a camera strapped to something, desperate to get "the photo", why not spend a week or two finding possible nesting holes. The nesting habit is well described. Get some feathers, get some DNA, there are ample reference samples. A proper research effort doing proper science.

Part of me thinks some of the "IBW is extant" community want dodgy pictures so they can keep the dream alive whilst secretly knowing that the bird is no more.

To be fair, he had just spent 3 days waiting at some trees where there was the scaling they consider sign of IBW so he wasn't just paddling around & he then obviously went searching where the bird was headed & found more trees with scaling so I think he is trying to get better pictures - he also says the scaling is too high up for a trailcamera to pick anything up, so again they are trying different methods. Why all these methods haven't resulted in proof or repeated sightings in the same area is a different question, & I think we probably agree what that reason is likely to be.

Personally, I think these people genuinely think the bird is still around & they're getting enough dodgy photos to keep their dream alive. Like I said, I work with a bird considered extinct for years, despite locals saying they were still around, and it took 10 years of extensive searching by a similar group of enthusiasts, & 10 years of being dismissed by everyone else, before they got definitive proof so I do have a bit of sympathy for the searchers

 

[MikeInPA]

I have absolutely no axe to grind on the subject of IBW, none whatsoever. If they were to discover there was a relict population in the Louisiana swamps and they offered free guided tours I still wouldn’t go. Alligators, swarms of mosquitoes, venomous snakes, no thank you. Just one of these Louisiana swamps is a million acres, that’s even if the target area is even in Louisiana. I think some of the detractors on here haven’t a clue about the scale of these swamps. Theres not hordes of birders, photographers and researchers scouring these vast areas just a hopeful few, no idea how many. On the subject of the lack of sharp definitive photographs I do a little photography myself. With one of the best super duper cameras and long telephoto lenses I miss easy shots all the time. So in this guys defense if I had been looking for as long a him and an IBW flew past me even if I had the camera in my hand I’d most likely miss it. I know my hands would be shaking, heart pounding and adrenaline going berserk in my bloodstream. It’s not as though the bird is stationary perched in a tree for a minute or more with excellent lighting and a stable tripod. The bloke was in a canoe paddling along and wham, a bird that could be the Holy Grail whizzes past. I’m not the slightest bit surprised that he got the pathetic footage of what might or might not be a IBW. The detractors who claim that it should have easy to get a definitive photo, yeah right, you know nothing.

Ivory Billed Woodpecker extinct? I hope not but it probably is.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Mike,

The detractors who claim that it should have easy to get a definitive photo, yeah right, you know nothing.

Careful with putting words in my mouth ... you're just one hair short of being a liar.

I have already had to clarify this once ...

Well, I didn't actually say "definitive", but "way better"

... and having repeatedly to go back to remind people dissing me of what I actually said is a close to infallible sign I'm being trolled.

Regards,

Henning

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Dave,

Sorry Hauksen, I still think you're being incredibly harsh with this! Assuming I'm remembering what he said correctly, he was in a canoe with a sony videocamera already running - the bird, whatever it is, suddenly appears out the trees crossing in front of him & he chose to keep the videocamera running & watch it with his naked eye

I'm quite lenient, actually. If I'd be feeling harsh, I'd point out he should have thrown his rubbish video into the trashbin instead of wasting other people's time with it. The one point where I'm harsh is that watching with the naked eye accomplished nothing, so he should absolutely tried to use the camera he had in his hands, and that was rolling already.

Other than that, it was a critical failure was to choose a video camera in the first place. He should have used a DSLR with a tele lens, because that's the camera he needs do get the job done.

First off he would have had to put the videocamera down & taken his eye off the bird, he's in a canoe so maybe his DSLR is already packed away, even if its not by the time he'd have picked it up again he'd have missed the closer fly-by, then he has to find the bird in the viewfinder & hope the autofocus locks on to the bird - if he's lucky the camera is already focused to roughly the right distance, otherwise all he'd see is a green out of focus blur & he's got to try & track a rapidly moving bird he can't see anymore while the camera's autofocus hunts for something to focus on & all there is then is a distant black & white bird against a background of dappled trees - I've got a pretty decent DSLR & lens too, but I know my camera would have just picked up on the trees & I'd have missed it completely & I'd be wishing I'd just left the videocamera running.

You're accepting too many of Harrison's poor choices, putting you at a disadvantage. Don't use a video camera in the first place, but have the DSLR ready. Don't stow it away inaccessibly, obviously. If you want to give it some protection, use a Lowepro (or similar) quick-draw backpack, flap open, bag lying on the side to the opening is on top. It takes a second to get the camera out from there, without even looking if you have done it often enough.

If you think you're not good at quick target acquisition, get a reflex sight from Nikon or Olympus that mounts on the flash shoe.

As I said, spot autofocus works pretty well on the DSLR I use, and while it's not infallible, the best technique is to shoot short burts, releasing the button in between, and giving the autofocus a new chance to acquire the target. That way, you get maybe one burst per second, so if the autofocus fails occasionally, you still have plenty of chances for a good shot.

If you absolutely want the video in addition to the DSLR photos, just mount the video camera on the lens collar coaxial with the main lens. Technology sometimes allows one to have the cake, and eat it.

Regards,

Henning

 

[MikeInPA]

Hi Mike,



Careful with putting words in my mouth ... you're just one hair short of being a liar.

I have already had to clarify this once ...



... and having repeatedly to go back to remind people dissing me of what I actually said is a close to infallible sign I'm being trolled.

Regards,

Henning

Did I mention you in any point my post? Do you think this discussion is all about you? Lighten up sunshine.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Dave,

Personally, I think these people genuinely think the bird is still around & they're getting enough dodgy photos to keep their dream alive.

Well, here's my hypothesis why Harrison didn't even try to take a video: When the bird actually flew past, turned, and flew off, he did not even for a moment believe it was an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, but some other, uninteresting species.

Only when other members of his community saw the video later, they interpreted it as an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker encounter, and convinced Harrison after the fact.

That scenario to me is a lot more credible than the official story of "I finally had the chance to fulfill my lifelong dream of discovering the believed-to-be-extinct woodpecker, and then didn't even point my camera at it when the moment came."

Mono in an earlier thread asked one guy from the woodpecker community for his field notes, and it turned out that his "sighting" experience consisted of another guy telling him he had just seen an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker several times over. That's the same kind of peer pressure effect that I hypothize is affecting Harrison.

If he was so sure he had seen the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker there, why did he sit on the video for two years? It took some time for peer pressure to work, I guess.

Regards,

Henning

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Mike,

Did I mention you in any point my post? Do you think this discussion is all about you? Lighten up sunshine.

So who else here talked about getting better pictures, using the word "definitive"?

No-one did, as the search results prove: Search results for query: definitive

You're building a strawman, misrepresenting my argument so your claims look better. Typical trolling technique.

You're also trying to pull "plausible deniability" for trolling, but this time there's really no ambiguity here you could hide behind.

And you're using rhethorical question to avoid making actual verifyable statements, because you can always say "I was just asking, sunshine!", which is another elementary trolling technique.

So, welcome to my ignore list.

Regards,

Henning

 

[MikeInPA]

Hi Mike,



So who else here talked about getting better pictures, using the word "definitive"?

No-one did, as the search results prove: Search results for query: definitive

You're building a strawman, misrepresenting my argument so your claims look better. Typical trolling technique.

You're also trying to pull "plausible deniability" for trolling, but this time there's really no ambiguity here you could hide behind.

And you're using rhethorical question to avoid making actual verifyable statements, because you can always say "I was just asking, sunshine!", which is another elementary trolling technique.

So, welcome to my ignore list.

Regards,

Henning

Wow! Ego overload. You really do think this is all about you. 🙄

So I’m a troll because I used the same word that you did?

 

[Dave Boyle]

Sorry, it was me who used definitive first, I just misremembered what Hauksen had written & didn't go back to check

 

[MikeInPA]

Sorry, it was me who used definitive first, I just misremembered what Hauksen had written & didn't go back to check

Hi Dave,

identifiable, definitive what ever synonym you fancy.

My point is that a lack of tack sharp images is not surprising even with the very latest cameras sitting in a canoe when the bird of a lifetime flies in front of you.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Dave,

Sorry, it was me who used definitive first, I just misremembered what Hauksen had written & didn't go back to check

Not a problem, I know you weren't meaning any harm - I just tried to clarify early on before someone could take the quote and run with it! ;-)

Regards,

Henning