Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

Edward woodwood · Mar 14, 2007

I've never read such half-baked stuff from people, several of whom don't know the bill end from the cloaca end of a bird. The whole thing is tragic. Tens of pairs. The Luneau video, a lone dispersing male, Stringclodes constantly upgrading his sightings and running down many of the best field birders in his own country. Choupique's fabrications; the endless crazy reasons why a large noisy Campephilus woodpecker can't be seen. The endless procession of books and talks. Those stupid wooden models. Photos on ebay. The irrelevant, meaningless surveys getting into semi-serious journals. The shoddy audio analysis; The whole piss-poor farago masquerading as science. And above all, the humourless, supercilious, pompous overtones of the believers.

And still no birds to conserve or study.

One day people will look back at this with incredulity. If they don't already.

cyberthrush · Mar 14, 2007

Tim Allwood said:
I've never read .....

no more caffeine for Timmie...

Merlin · Mar 14, 2007

Sancho,
It is refreshing to read a sensible response, whatever your views are?
best regards
Merlin

Sancho said:
Thanks for that, Colonelboris. Congratulations on getting post 10,000! You should get a prize of a holiday to a swamp in Louisiana with an IR camera and a sleeping-bag. It's very hard from this side of the big pond to understand what's going on with IBWO. I've been following this thread for ages, maybe 'cos we live on small islands without great tracts of wilderness, it's difficult to see how the thing has not been conclusively pinned down yet. So many folk swear they've seen it, and yet there's nothing concrete yet. It's impossible to prove a negative, but proving a positive shouldn't have taken this long, one would have thought? It's a pity things get so personal, though. Birders should be able to hold conflicting opinions without getting into online fisticuffs... tolerance and freedom of belief and all that.

Xenospiza · Mar 14, 2007

Tim Allwood said:
I've never read

(I just had to...)

Succinct summary of 10,000 posts.

Edward woodwood · Mar 14, 2007

cyberthrush said:
no more caffeine for Timmie...

mmm

you really DONT do irony do you? (The 'I've never read' bit 8-P )

despite your best attempts with this bird

Tim

humminbird · Mar 14, 2007

Xenospiza said:
(I just had to...)

Succinct summary of 10,000 posts.

Could not disagree more. Whether the bird is viable or not, this thread has provided some very thought provoking discussion despite Tims repeated attempts to do away with it.

Larry Sweetland · Mar 14, 2007

Come on folks we've hit 10,000 now, can't we spend what little time we have left before our own extinction talking about something that might actually still exist, like Slender-billed Curlew or Lee Evans ?

Maybe that's unfair. I must admit I haven't been following this too closely. Have any of these 10000+ posts been from anyone who has seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker ? If you have seen one, it must be a nightmare for you that I don't want to add too.

timeshadowed · Mar 14, 2007

Larry Wheatland said:
Have any of these 10000+ posts been from anyone who has seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker?

The simple answer to your question is - YES!

In fact several who have posted to this thread have seen them - some several times.

humminbird · Mar 14, 2007

Larry Wheatland said:
Come on folks we've hit 10,000 now, can't we spend what little time we have left before our own extinction talking about something that might actually still exist, like Slender-billed Curlew or Lee Evans ?

Maybe that's unfair. I must admit I haven't been following this too closely. Have any of these 10000+ posts been from anyone who has seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker ? If you have seen one, it must be a nightmare for you that I don't want to add too.

Another person who jumps in without reading (Tim, you have company!)
Several posts upthread are from people who describe what they have seen.

Edward woodwood · Mar 14, 2007

yes Larry

stringclodes has even seen them in three states (although it may be four by now)

MMinNY · Mar 14, 2007

Maybe it is too much caffeine. . .I was going to suggest a Xanax, but I'm no doctor.

Seriously though, pontificating on material you've never read is the mark of a poseur. I'm not suggesting that anyone will be persuaded by Geoff Hill's book, but it does include new information/evidence (which may not persuade anyone whose mind isn't made up but which is still worth reviewing and considering) and some very provocative analysis (not all of which I agree with). To dismiss it sight unseen is to betray a lack of seriousness on this subject. Resorting to schoolyard taunts does the same.

cyberthrush said:
no more caffeine for Timmie...

Mike Johnston · Mar 15, 2007

Docmartin's paper will be online today. There are already some articles on its contents. See these for a start:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14353338.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/bc-aco031207.php

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0314-ibwo.html

http://journalwatch.conservationmagazine.org/2007/03/15/why-a-datum-isn’t-enough/

salar53 · Mar 15, 2007

Bleak

Mike Johnston said:
Docmartin's paper will be online today. There are already some articles on its contents. See these for a start:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14353338.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/bc-aco031207.php

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0314-ibwo.html

http://journalwatch.conservationmagazine.org/2007/03/15/why-a-datum-isn’t-enough/

Ah, it's looking quite bleak for us believers, eh?

And yet. And yet.
Docmartin himself in his blog of 5th March 2007 states, "I really have no reason to doubt the recent sight-records". (Of Ivory-billed woodpecker).

And what does Docmartin do on 10th March 2007? Yes, he joined the believers' forum at IBWO.net.

This mystery is by no means resolved.

timeshadowed · Mar 15, 2007

A New Tanner IBWO Photo

I was able to view a copy of the latest ABA "Birding" Magazine today. On page 26 there is a color photo - courtesy Nancy Tanner - of a perched male IBWO. This photo does not seem to be available on the ABA web site that I'm aware of.

What struck me about the photo was that:

1. The white dorsal stripe is very wide and runs down the neck as one would expect but this stripe does not extend down the back of the bird.
2. The white wing patch only appears to be a tiny spot located well above the normal 'white saddle' appearance that we have come to expect.
3. However, the large white bill and large yellow eye and red crest are all very visable in the photo.

I'm almost positive that if this same photo were to be presented by a 'searcher' today, the skeptics would be still claiming that this was a PIWO photo and not an IBWO photo.

To any that have also viewed this photo, what are your thoughts?

John Mariani · Mar 15, 2007

colonelboris said:
Someone who tries to cause trouble for fun on forums by winding people up.
Apparently, someone on the other forum I use is doing the opposite (or 'billy-goating') by inviting a troll to the forum and beating them to an online death.

Edit: Oh dear, appear to have hit the big 10K. I'd better say something IBWO-y...

What about using IR cameras at night? The b***ers have got to sleep sometime...

So I guess a troll could be someone who enters a forum and tries to derail the conversation or take it off subject. Take a subject you have no actual interest in and use it to wind people up. Hmmm. Where did I see that happen...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=63449&page=1&pp=25&highlight=Moustached+warbler

John Mariani · Mar 15, 2007

Tim Allwood said:
I've never read such half-baked stuff from people, several of whom don't know the bill end from the cloaca end of a bird. The whole thing is tragic. Tens of pairs. The Luneau video, a lone dispersing male, Stringclodes constantly upgrading his sightings and running down many of the best field birders in his own country. Choupique's fabrications; the endless crazy reasons why a large noisy Campephilus woodpecker can't be seen. The endless procession of books and talks. Those stupid wooden models. Photos on ebay. The irrelevant, meaningless surveys getting into semi-serious journals. The shoddy audio analysis; The whole piss-poor farago masquerading as science. And above all, the humourless, supercilious, pompous overtones of the believers.

And still no birds to conserve or study.

One day people will look back at this with incredulity. If they don't already.

Don't worry, history will sort itself out.

Imaginos · Mar 15, 2007

colonelboris said:
What about using IR cameras at night? The b***ers have got to sleep sometime...

Or it might catch them flying around as they've gone nocturnal to escape persecution & ensure there's no photos...

Mike Johnston · Mar 15, 2007

Docmartin's paper now online here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/8/abstract

CornishExile · Mar 15, 2007

salar53 said:
Ah, it's looking quite bleak for us believers, eh?

And yet. And yet.
Docmartin himself in his blog of 5th March 2007 states, "I really have no reason to doubt the recent sight-records". (Of Ivory-billed woodpecker).

And what does Docmartin do on 10th March 2007? Yes, he joined the believers' forum at IBWO.net.

This mystery is by no means resolved.

I'd suggest a careful reading of Docmartin's paper and blog would reveal a scientist who (like all of us) would dearly like the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to be extant - but who is not prepared to let his dispassionate scientific judgement be coloured by that desire.

So he visits IBWO.net? I wouldn't read anything into that. You'd expect anyone with a keen interest in a given subject to expose themselves to as much relevant source data as possible, no matter how credible or laughable it might appear at first glance.

ce

MMinNY · Mar 15, 2007

I agree (which may be a first for us CE). It's a fine paper (haven't read his blog), well-argued and documented and very even-handed in its tone. It will be interesting to read any rebuttals; it doesn't change my overall view on IBWO survival, but it certainly casts considerable doubt on the Luneau video.

It's also gratifying to note that there was co-operation and collaboration among people on both sides of the debate.

CornishExile said:
I'd suggest a careful reading of Docmartin's paper and blog would reveal a scientist who (like all of us) would dearly like the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to be extant - but who is not prepared to let his dispassionate scientific judgement be coloured by that desire.

So he visits IBWO.net? I wouldn't read anything into that. You'd expect anyone with a keen interest in a given subject to expose themselves to as much relevant source data as possible, no matter how credible or laughable it might appear at first glance.

ce

Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (3 Viewers)

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Distracted

Member

Well-known member

Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Time is a Shadow

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn!

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread