-
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 (formerly updates) (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Well maybe this thread has become completely pointless then. Why not call a complete halt to all postings until such time as there is some serious new evidence to debate (and by that I don't mean yet another 'I saw one yesterday, honestly' post); i.e. picture, video, audio, detailed field notes, physical evidence. And no more mysterious hints about having evidence but it can't be revealed yet or is being suppressed. Put up or shut up. But at the minute there is absolutely nothing to discuss. Period.gws said:Chris, baby, we passed ludicrous about 100 pages ago. :hi:
MacGillivray's Trout
Well-known member
timeshadowed said:
Please direct me to the answers to post 5576. I don't seem to be able to find them on this thread.
Timeshadowed, I'm not the researcher. I don't have to show ANYTHING about PIWO and IBWO. If you start questioning me on my own research, then it's up to me to show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right. How far do you think science would have progressed if it worked the other way around? Have you ever published in a referreed journal?
MacGillivray's Trout
Well-known member
cinclodes said:
Maybe I'm on his ignore list. I don't know why, we've never spoken before.
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
For all those who continue to find this as ludicrous please opt out. I have already admitted defeat, you are all right, and there is nothing further to discuss.
For those that want physical evidence please feel free to hop on out there and find it.
For those that think it is easy the same.
For those who want to continue whining about the last two sentences please see sentence one.
For those that want physical evidence please feel free to hop on out there and find it.
For those that think it is easy the same.
For those who want to continue whining about the last two sentences please see sentence one.
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Being that this is supposed to be an "updates" thread you could be right Jesse.
No-one has provided anything that might constitute an update on the status of IBWO ............... except cinclodes and he wont talk about it - what's the point ? 8-P :h?:
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
timeshadowed said:
Bearing in mind the quality of the documentation of all the recent sightings - there would undoubtedly be 'debate' about whether it should be declared extinct.
IBWO_Agnostic
Well-known member
Okay, let me try...
Mike Collins,
1. Do you feel that flap-rate is a good indicator of the presence of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker when viewed and measured in a video?
2. Is body shape definitive when comparing IBWO and PIWO from a distance?
Thank you.
Mike Collins,
1. Do you feel that flap-rate is a good indicator of the presence of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker when viewed and measured in a video?
2. Is body shape definitive when comparing IBWO and PIWO from a distance?
Thank you.
Xenospiza
Distracted
Still a lot I'm afraid (sorry guys!) Each sighting in a "new area" would need the same rigorous scrutiny as the one that proved its continuing existence.timeshadowed said:
One "real" IBWO wouldn't turn any of the other "reported IBWO's" into real IBWO's, certainly not on the scant evidence provided. Although we could then at least compare those flap rates...
timeshadowed
Time is a Shadow
Xenospiza said:
Thanks for all that have answered my two questions - Tim?? OH Tim, where are you??
I think that Xenospiza has probably expressed the skeptics viewpoint best.
So can we thus conclude that, even if that 'perfect photo' is obtained, the debate will still be ongoing? What, if anything, will stop the debate?
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Amounts pretty much to you saying 'we are god, be a believer in our words'.
So, the brick wall mentality has concluded there is nothing further to discuss, so you'd like all those that find the flimsy arguments and waffle ludicrous to opt out. What is your point of coming on a forum? Preach to your converted flock?
Last edited:
Edward woodwood
Member
timeshadowed said:
of course each sighting in a new area needs verifying
it's comon sense. Even your silly questions gets answers; not so those sensible ones put to Mr Collins'....
I thought you were ignoring me, darling?
chris murphy
Used Register
timeshadowed said:
If a 'Perfect photo' is obtained then I'm sure that will bring to an end the extinct/extant debate, as assuming the photo is clear, identifiable, and it is obvious it has not been doctored in any way, then it will prove that the species still exists. However, there will always be debates going on, even if the species continued existence is satisfactorily proven (what was the bird in the Luneau video?, are there birds elsewhere? etc) and discussions will continue. Maybe they will not be as heated as this one has become but given the subject matter, I suppose maybe it is inevitable.
Chris
Snowy1
Well-known member
chris murphy said:
It was too hard to resist commenting on this one...
The question "what was the bird in the Luneau video?" has already been answered. It is an Ivorybill. Whether I believe it exists or not is completely irrelevant. I don't know the group from Cornell personally who came to this conclusion but nevertheless, they did come to that conclusion. Therefore, for me personally, the group has spoken and it must be assumed true. Why? Because if a group of experts from a reputable organization such as Cornell come to that conclusion, it (the subject of discussion) has then reached a "high-enough" level of certainty to be accepted; otherwise, nothing can ever be proven true or false and the scientific process fails as we know it. I believe the reason there is so much debate is because there are skeptics out there louder than most who cannot accept such an incredible event occuring and it is they who are actually undoing the scientific process, not the people from Cornell who have made the claim. Again, my belief of the status of the Ivorybill is irrelevant - I don't make statements or conduct studies that will be written in field guides 30 years from now. Cornell does. Cornell has. Done! I would like to hear a reply that can scientifically undo the results...
timeshadowed said:
The only thing that would stop some of these sKeptics would be if a whole sqaudron of ivorybills would cross the pond and do a collective double-tap on their thick skulls.
Face it, some of these guys would argue about the color of the sky.
Also, some of them need to snipe at things American, and they are probably also pissed that the ivorybill threads get incredible action here, as opposed to little interest in the the various threads about the double-billed, triple-tailed, multi-colored whatever from wherever.
Last edited:
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Who made Cornell infallible? There are plenty of equally prominent ornithologists who do not accept that the video shows an IBWO, or that it does not do so conclusively and further evidence is needed. What is wrong with that? Scientific truth does not come about simply because one group of scientists makes a claim, based on one piece of evidence. It is Cornell's belief that the video shows an IBWO. That does not make it infallible truth.Snowy1 said:
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Why do you insist on making this an anti-American thing? That's simply childish. There are plenty of Americans who are equally sceptical based on existing evidence. And if some of you actually bothered to explore other threads you will find plenty of 'action', ie debate, advice, humour, information, etc. from people of all nationalities. Trying widening your horizons a little. It's a big world out there! I sometimes wonder whether any of you are actually interested in birds at all, other than IBWO. A complete ignorance of the wider birding world, including the ability to ID, doesn't do you any favours when trying to present evidence.gws said:
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Do we really have to go over this again? Even many IBWO 'believers' admit the Luneau video is inconclusive.Snowy1 said:
So, whatever Cornell says goes. End of story. They can't be wrong. There's no point even looking at their evidence. Fitz and Harrison couldn't possibly be mistaken. Wow - you are trusting! I suppose all the woodpeckers you see fly like fulmars too!Snowy1 said:
Amazing - questioning dubious evidence and dubious analysis is undoing the scientific process - what kind of science to you practise? Scientology? If we are going to stop questioning scientific results then perhaps we should stop peer review as well - that would undo the scientific process completely.Snowy1 said:
Well people have tried to raise sensible criticisms of the Luneau video almost since this thread began. There are bona fide criticisms of the video and the methods used to analyse it, some of which have been published in Science - one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world. Try reading Sibley's article. Try reading the technical criticisms of the Luneau video here (I advise you to ignore the poetry).Snowy1 said:
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
gws said:
It is blue today but it was red the other night, grey the day before and I couldn't see it the day before that. I suppose your mum told you it was blue one day and you never thought to look up ever again ?
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
gws said:
Funnily enough, at least two woodpeckers have made it across the pond. They weren't IBWOs though. How do we know? Becaue someone checked all the pertinent identification features and documented the sightings properly.
Similar threads
