• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (4 Viewers)

Video Evidence?

humminbird said:
I think video will be required, of a very good series of photos that could not have been posed.

I rather think not. I'm not sure even feathers would do it ("Must have been stolen from a specimen" "What specimen?" "An unknown specimen." "How could he have found an unknown specimen?" "In the collection with all the atypical PIWO specimens.").

I think TRE has to pick up a fresh road-kill, or bring a pocketful of #4's with him the next time he goes out. Even then, he'll be accused of importing an aberrant Campephilus from Latin America.

I think even a Kuhn-ish video with an ivorybill young clinging to TRE's head would be derided as a cheap hoax . . .
 
A feather would do it - DNA analysis and elemental analysis to confirm the environment it was grown in. A faeces would be pretty clear too.

Though in either case only the source of the maternal DNA would be proven.
 
Jane Turner said:
A feather would do it - DNA analysis and elemental analysis to confirm the environment it was grown in. A faeces would be pretty clear too.

Though in either case only the source of the maternal DNA would be proven.

They didn't work a few years ago though! Exactly the scenario that was presented was thrown at the men who presented them!
 
Call me naive, but I think unambiguous still photos or video would probably convince all but the lunatic fringe. I'm well aware of the history, but there's a lot more circumstantial evidence for survival now than there was when the Lewis photos surfaced. With a clear photo, the remaining skeptics would likely be reduced to the role of being deniers, along the lines of those who doubt the moon landing.

At least, I hope that proves to be the case.



humminbird said:
They didn't work a few years ago though! Exactly the scenario that was presented was thrown at the men who presented them!
 
to remove the UFO-esque aura . . .

MMinNY said:
Call me naive, but I think unambiguous still photos or video would probably convince all but the lunatic fringe. I'm well aware of the history, but there's a lot more circumstantial evidence for survival now than there was when the Lewis photos surfaced. With a clear photo, the remaining skeptics would likely be reduced to the role of being deniers, along the lines of those who doubt the moon landing.

At least, I hope that proves to be the case.

After being quite hopeful early on, I'm now an IBWO skeptic, because as time goes by, it sounds more and more like stories of UFO sightings or Sasquatch sightings to me. The more carefully people look, the rarer and less convincing the sightings seem to become, and never with any hard evidence. Note that there is no shortage of UFO true believers who are convinced by their personal experience that they've been visited by aliens.

I think what's needed is a bird that lets itself get observed more than once before it returns to its planet of origin. Reproducibility of observations by multiple observers would be the most incontrovertible proof. I don't think the initial IBWO sightings in Arkansas meet this standard, and it seems like things have gone downhill since then.
 
Offended

Personally I am offended by the reference to wacko UFO believers and Sasquatch believers.We are not talking about little green men and an animal that has never been proven to exist.
We are talking about a bird ,that as a known fact lived on this continent for at least hundreds of years.It is also an accepted fact that they still existed here 60 years ago.Why is it so hard to believe that they could have lived on at least in small numbers for that long.If they were that unadaptable they would not have lasted as long as they did before then.

djleahy said:
After being quite hopeful early on, I'm now an IBWO skeptic, because as time goes by, it sounds more and more like stories of UFO sightings or Sasquatch sightings to me. The more carefully people look, the rarer and less convincing the sightings seem to become, and never with any hard evidence. Note that there is no shortage of UFO true believers who are convinced by their personal experience that they've been visited by aliens.

I think what's needed is a bird that lets itself get observed more than once before it returns to its planet of origin. Reproducibility of observations by multiple observers would be the most incontrovertible proof. I don't think the initial IBWO sightings in Arkansas meet this standard, and it seems like things have gone downhill since then.
 
I don't buy your premise about "rarer and less convincing," to wit TRE's Arkansas sightings from this year and Tyler Hicks's sighting from December 24, '06, but accepting it for the sake of argument, are you saying a clear photo from, say the Auburn team wouldn't be acceptable? I find that position quite shocking.



djleahy said:
After being quite hopeful early on, I'm now an IBWO skeptic, because as time goes by, it sounds more and more like stories of UFO sightings or Sasquatch sightings to me. The more carefully people look, the rarer and less convincing the sightings seem to become, and never with any hard evidence. Note that there is no shortage of UFO true believers who are convinced by their personal experience that they've been visited by aliens.

I think what's needed is a bird that lets itself get observed more than once before it returns to its planet of origin. Reproducibility of observations by multiple observers would be the most incontrovertible proof. I don't think the initial IBWO sightings in Arkansas meet this standard, and it seems like things have gone downhill since then.
 
MMinNY said:
I don't buy your premise about "rarer and less convincing," to wit TRE's Arkansas sightings from this year and Tyler Hicks's sighting from December 24, '06, but accepting it for the sake of argument, are you saying a clear photo from, say the Auburn team wouldn't be acceptable? I find that position quite shocking.

I think a clear photo would be fantastic and inspiring! It would almost certainly be enough to put me back into the "hopeful" camp. But it would be odd if the bird appeared for exactly one photo and was never seen again by a team of expert searchers, wouldn't it?

BTW, didn't mean to offend anyone; certainly I'm not calling anyone a wacko. The vast majority of people who believe that they've seen a UFO, based on a profound personal experience, are not wacky in any way, shape or form. I just meant to draw a parallel between the fleeting nature of the observations. (I assume I'm in way too deep to recover, though).
 
But wait. . .the Auburn team has reported sightings this year. Not as many as last season, as far as we know, but sightings nonetheless, and not all by the same individual. In light of that, I'm not at all clear on how you define reproducibility.

I guess I was naive to think a photo would be enough. . .



djleahy said:
I think a clear photo would be fantastic and inspiring! It would almost certainly be enough to put me back into the "hopeful" camp. But it would be odd if the bird appeared for exactly one photo and was never seen again by a team of expert searchers, wouldn't it?

BTW, didn't mean to offend anyone; certainly I'm not calling anyone a wacko. The vast majority of people who believe that they've seen a UFO, based on a profound personal experience, are not wacky in any way, shape or form. I just meant to draw a parallel between the fleeting nature of the observations. (I assume I'm in way too deep to recover, though).
 
MMinNY said:
But wait. . .the Auburn team has reported sightings this year. Not as many as last season, as far as we know, but sightings nonetheless, and not all by the same individual. In light of that, I'm not at all clear on how you define reproducibility.

I guess I was naive to think a photo would be enough. . .

The difficulty with accepting reports of sightings from the same general area by different individuals spread over a period of time is that this is precisely what would expect to happen if the bird was indeed present within the general area, but is also what one would expect as a result of “expectancy bias”. A report of a bird by one observer is more likely to make other observers believe they have seen one, when in fact they haven’t. Before you think I’m getting at the Auburn team, I’ve observed this phenomenon many times within the UK birding community and there are several instances of “mass hallucinations” of rare birds here. I guess it boils down to gut feeling and common sense. Sporadic records from the same general area quite widely spaced in time and generally of birds seen poorly are in my opinion more likely to be due to expectancy bias. Individuals seen well within a short time of each other by multiple observers, perhaps where one observer has been responsible for relocating the bird and pointing it out to others, would almost certainly be examples of unmistaken identity. Unfortunately, the pattern of Auburn’s sightings seem to follow the former rather than the latter.
 
In this context, I was talking about the sightings in conjunction with a hypothetical photo. A photo would tend to confirm the former scenario.

Ilya Maclean said:
The difficulty with accepting reports of sightings from the same general area by different individuals spread over a period of time is that this is precisely what would expect to happen if the bird was indeed present within the general area, but is also what one would expect as a result of “expectancy bias”. A report of a bird by one observer is more likely to make other observers believe they have seen one, when in fact they haven’t. Before you think I’m getting at the Auburn team, I’ve observed this phenomenon many times within the UK birding community and there are several instances of “mass hallucinations” of rare birds here. I guess it boils down to gut feeling and common sense. Sporadic records from the same general area quite widely spaced in time and generally of birds seen poorly are in my opinion more likely to be due to expectancy bias. Individuals seen well within a short time of each other by multiple observers, perhaps where one observer has been responsible for relocating the bird and pointing it out to others, would almost certainly be examples of unmistaken identity. Unfortunately, the pattern of Auburn’s sightings seem to follow the former rather than the latter.
 
TRE329 said:
Personally I am offended by the reference to wacko UFO believers and Sasquatch believers.We are not talking about little green men and an animal that has never been proven to exist.
We are talking about a bird ,that as a known fact lived on this continent for at least hundreds of years.It is also an accepted fact that they still existed here 60 years ago.Why is it so hard to believe that they could have lived on at least in small numbers for that long.If they were that unadaptable they would not have lasted as long as they did before then.

You asked a question in the middle there, so I'll attempt to answer it.

For small numbers of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers to have survived unconfirmed since the 1940s (in Louisiana) or even longer in other southern states (decades longer in some cases) would require the existence of breeding populations. This means multiple pairs. It is rather unlikely that populations (plural if we believe all the credible observers) of multiple pairs would go undiscovered for so long - by discovery meaning someone would notice the giant woodpeckers flying around and a nest or nests would be located.

To explain how these large birds have managed to stay under the radar for so long we have to believe that they are extremely wary of man and inhabit only wilderness areas where birders don't go. We are told that birders don't see them because to get close enough to see one requires extreme stealth, camo clothing, etc. The reason I find this extremely unlikely is that it would mean that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are totally unlike any other woodpecker (or any other bird really) in behavior. There is no species that I need to wear camo to see. If a tree is good to feed in it wouldn't matter whether it is in pristine forest or on the edge of a road - that isn't something birds care much about. If there are IBWOs out there we should be seeing them along roads, powerline cuts, etc. And there is no reason to believe that they would be any more wary than a Pileated Woodpecker or any other Campephilus. Historically IBWOs were not so wary that they couldn't be hunted successfully. The argument that this made the survivors super-wary simply doesn't make sense, since hunting pressure has lessened and couldn't be any greater on IBWOs than on Pileated and other woodpeckers that we can readily observe. People who knew the Ivory-billed wrote that they called frequently...it has been suggested that they have become quiter these days to conceal their presence. Again, not very likely. The claimed difficulty of finding IBWOs depends on their being much more shy and furtive than other birds...even rails!. Real birds don't ALWAYS fly away before they can be studied and aren't always on the wrong side of the tree - and that includes other large woodpeckers.

About being adaptable...Ivory-billed Woodpecker was not. Within historic times it was never very common, and disappeared rapidly wherever man reduced its mature forest habitat. Last CONFIRMED US population of Ivory-bills vanished circa 1944. Last CONFIRMED sighting of Imperial Woodpecker (a very closely related species) was in the mid-1950s. Last CONFIRMED sightings of Cuban Ivory-bills was in the late 1980s. All these populations vanished within a historically short span of time. They could not adapt.
 
djleahy said:
I think a clear photo would be fantastic and inspiring! It would almost certainly be enough to put me back into the "hopeful" camp. But it would be odd if the bird appeared for exactly one photo and was never seen again by a team of expert searchers, wouldn't it?

BTW, didn't mean to offend anyone; certainly I'm not calling anyone a wacko. The vast majority of people who believe that they've seen a UFO, based on a profound personal experience, are not wacky in any way, shape or form. I just meant to draw a parallel between the fleeting nature of the observations. (I assume I'm in way too deep to recover, though).

Profound personal experience vs. what id provable...reminds me of this bit from "No More Buffalo" by James McMurtry:

I never thought they'd ever doubt my words
I guess they were just too tired to care
I'd point to the horizon
to the dust of the herds
still hovering in the air
somebody said it aint any such
man you wish so hard you're scaring me
cuz those are combines kicking up that dust
but I guess you can see what you want to see

you can keep on chasing what used to be there
top that rise and face the pain
but man they were here
they were here I swear
not just these bleaching bones
stretching across the plain
 
John Mariani said:
About being adaptable...Ivory-billed Woodpecker was not. Within historic times it was never very common, and disappeared rapidly wherever man reduced its mature forest habitat. Last CONFIRMED US population of Ivory-bills vanished circa 1944. Last CONFIRMED sighting of Imperial Woodpecker (a very closely related species) was in the mid-1950s. Last CONFIRMED sightings of Cuban Ivory-bills was in the late 1980s. All these populations vanished within a historically short span of time. They could not adapt.


Those "CONFIRMED" 1980's Cuba sightings resulted in no photograph. Why exactly were those "CONFIRMED" when, in your opinion, the sightings by the Auburn team have not been? You can't pick and choose bud!

There has never been even one photo of a living Imperial. Not one. Maybe they really died out 200 years ago!
 
John Mariani said:
...
but I guess you can see what you want to see

you can keep on chasing what used to be there
...

Knock it off. Somewhere between 15 and 20 people have had credible sightings, many of those highly experienced birders, and include very good views. Searchers don't need you sitting behind your computer and telling them they are delusional for seeing what they saw.
 
emupilot said:
Knock it off. Somewhere between 15 and 20 people have had credible sightings, many of those highly experienced birders, and include very good views. Searchers don't need you sitting behind your computer and telling them they are delusional for seeing what they saw.

Hmmm. Well, just to reiterate my point, I would like to point out that the number of credible UFO sightings by experienced UFO searchers over the last 60 years would utterly swamp the number of IBWO sightings. I, for one, am not swayed by the UFO accounts (I know, in America, this may place me in a minority).

Draw your own conclusions. But please recall that we humans are imperfect creatures.

In science, we demand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am sad to say that I don't see the Cornell school upholding this standard.
 
Last edited:
Tuna Slushie said:
Those "CONFIRMED" 1980's Cuba sightings resulted in no photograph. Why exactly were those "CONFIRMED" when, in your opinion, the sightings by the Auburn team have not been? You can't pick and choose bud!

There has never been even one photo of a living Imperial. Not one. Maybe they really died out 200 years ago!

Let's not be ridiculous. There are confirmed - a pair was shot - records of imperialis up to at least 1955 as you can read in Tanner's 1962 paper on the status of the species: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v081n01/p0074-p0081.pdf

Brad
 
emupilot said:
Knock it off. Somewhere between 15 and 20 people have had credible sightings, many of those highly experienced birders, and include very good views. Searchers don't need you sitting behind your computer and telling them they are delusional for seeing what they saw.
It would be interesting to see your list of 20 credible people who have seen IBWO recently. The word "credible" is entirely a matter of opinion which of course is the crux of just about everything that we have been discussing on this forum .
 
Tuna Slushie said:
Those "CONFIRMED" 1980's Cuba sightings resulted in no photograph. Why exactly were those "CONFIRMED" when, in your opinion, the sightings by the Auburn team have not been? You can't pick and choose bud!

The confusion species in Cuba being ?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top