Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Yawn . . .

IBWO status.... Yawn.... Where's the photo? Oh, there isn't one. Where's the Bigfoot photo? Oh, there isn't one.

If you're bored, why don't you answer my question upthread, about how I'm supposed to be regret being a skeptic when the IBWO is finally found? Because I still don't understand. Show me an acceptable photo, and I'll believe you. Where is the regret?

 

[Big Phil]

The problem is that the term carries with it the implication of pseudoscience.

From Wikipedia (I know it's not authoritative, but it's quick and easy):

"Cryptozoology is often considered a pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists."

Well.....to be fair.....pseudoscience sounds about right.

 

[Jane Turner]

I have been avoiding painting the bathroom ceiling by looking into the rather fun cryptozoology site. Its your fault MMinNY for making me look the word up.

I've found putative Washington Eagle sightings
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=2294
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=210
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=992

A few IBWO
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=1515
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=1229
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=986
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=233
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=60


and rather a lot Large Hairy Bipeds,
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=1115
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=685
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=56
some with quite nice field notes
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=2324
or pictures of trees that you need the eye of faith for
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=848

a Thylacine
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=2580

and best of all a Velociraptor in Oklahoma
http://www.cryptozoology.com/sightings/sightings_show.php?id=2246


So what is going on. Do people make these things up to gain attention, or do they genuinely think they have seen a bird with a 15' foot wingspan, a hairy biped the size of a haystack etc etc. If one of those Ivory bill descriptions had been reported to e.g. Cincloides, it would be down as a definite sighting by now, yet it is no more or less convincing than the velociaptor!

 

[MMinNY]

All right. We're back in the gutter again. I've made it very clear why analogies to bigfoot, etc. are inapt, most recently just a few posts ago. Some of you lot are nothing but schoolyard bullies. You're not engaging in debate. You're just trying to prove how clever you are.

To repeat - reasonable people differ about the IBWO. Articles on the survival of the IBWO have been published in peer reviewed journals. Ornithologists at major universities have reported seeing IBWOs, and major universities are funding research, as is the U.S. Government. This doesn't prove the IBWO exists. It does demonstrate that the analogy is spurious and a mere bullying tactic.

 

[Jane Turner]

All right. We're back in the gutter again. I've made it very clear why analogies to bigfoot, etc. are inapt, most recently just a few posts ago. Some of you lot are nothing but schoolyard bullies. You're not engaging in debate. You're just trying to prove how clever you are.

Au contraire, I am seriously interested in why people either make up these stories or are convinced that they have seen something that clearly they haven't, like a Woodpecker with a wingspan greater than a vulture?

 

[timeshadowed]

No it can't be done with the IBWO like you said, it takes DATA to recover the species. Nobody knows population size, birth rate, death rate, sex ratio, emigration... What kind of management are you going to do knowing none of those things? No nest has been found, so you don't even know what critical habitat really is.

"conservation efforts" include all of the above.

 

[timeshadowed]

Oh dear.. .another night of deletions. I

No, Jane, the board was 'all quiet' last night. Nothing has been deleted that I know about.

 

[MMinNY]

I meant Phil more than you, though your reference to Mike Collins in this context bothered me. As to what people say they've seen, it probably varies a great deal from individual to individual. Everything from psychosis or hallucination to mistaken identity to attention seeking could be in play.

Au contraire, I am seriously interested in why people either make up these stories or are convinced that they have seen something that clearly they haven't, like a Woodpecker with a wingspan greater than a vulture?

 

[Big Phil]

I meant Phil

I'm thrilled. I haven't seen anything, published or otherwise, pertaining to the survival of the IBWO that stands up to rigourous scientific scrutiny. Hence 'pseudoscience' seems apt. I'm sure, however, that it's a term that could be applied to much of what we amateur birdwatchers do....

 

[Mike Johnston]

As to what people say they've seen, it probably varies a great deal from individual to individual. Everything from psychosis or hallucination to mistaken identity to attention seeking could be in play.

And this is exactly why many sceptics are uneasy with some of the reported IBWO sightings.

 

[Jane Turner]

I meant Phil more than you, though your reference to Mike Collins in this context bothered me. As to what people say they've seen, it probably varies a great deal from individual to individual. Everything from psychosis or hallucination to mistaken identity to attention seeking could be in play.

I used Mike as an example becuase I think he, and possibly Jesse, mention that they have heard reports from non-birders etc that they believe are IBWO and repeat them as evidence that the species is present in several locations. My point was I don't see and difference between such reports and the IBWO reports on this site!

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

"conservation efforts" include all of the above.

What?

 

[humminbird]

As to what people say they've seen, it probably varies a great deal from individual to individual. Everything from psychosis or hallucination to mistaken identity to attention seeking could be in play.

Actually Mike, being on the front line of some of the BF, chupacabra nonsense, it is more likely a situation of "I have never seen anything like this in my sixty plus years therefore it must be something that is unknown to science." I have seen photos that are clearly a canine species with severe mange reported as chupacabras. When you explain what it is, the response you get is "I've seen dogs with mange. This is no dog with ...." Sound familiar?

 

[timeshadowed]

. . .how I'm supposed to be regret being a skeptic when the IBWO is finally found? Because I still don't understand. Show me an acceptable photo, and I'll believe you. Where is the regret?

In post #8289, I made no mention of names.

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Oh how foolish skeptics continue to appear by continuing their denial that the IBWO exists.

I am a skeptic. Please elaborate how I will appear foolish by not accepting the IBWO as living because there is no photo. When an acceptable photo is produced, I will believe it does indeed exist. Why is this foolish?

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

"conservation efforts" include all of the above.

Seriously, I don't understand what this means. Conservations do include all of the above, and my point is that none of it none. Makes recovery of a species hard when you have zero data about it.

 

[timeshadowed]

I am a skeptic. Please elaborate how I will appear foolish by not accepting the IBWO as living because there is no photo. When an acceptable photo is produced, I will believe it does indeed exist. Why is this foolish?

In another post in the same 'conversation' I used the phrase "certain skeptics'. If you want to insist on including yourself, that is up to you. It's your choice. I did not single you out. Now quit the 'flamebait' posts please.

 

[Russ Jones]

Makes recovery of a species hard when you have zero data about it.

You don't need data to know that protecting habitat will help recover a species. I would imagine protecting habitat is the single most effective approach on most recovery projects. I say protect all the land you can, if the IBWO is present that is fantastic...if not its still fantastic that land is being protected for all of the other species that need it. win win

Russ

 

[Mike Johnston]

Epps, a resident of Diamondhead, Miss., and fellow birder Michael Collins, of Washington, D.C., contend they saw one flit across their path just days ago, as they combed the forest in the Pearl River Wildlife Management Area.

"You don’t need a Ph.D. to identify this bird," said Collins, an avid bird watcher who, in fact, holds a doctorate in mathematics from Northwestern University. "It’s an easy bird to identify."...

...Collins, who has recorded 12 sightings in the past year, intends to return in the winter, after hunting season, when the forest is still.
The Times-Picayune
Sunday, October 08, 2006
By Jenny Hurwitz

Apologies to those who have read this previously, but Mike Collins (aka cinclodes) claims twelve definite (not possible) sightings from last year. Even the Florida group could only manage 14 between them from a year, with a solid season living in the area.

 

[EMalatesta]

Apologies to those who have read this previously, but Mike Collins (aka cinclodes) claims twelve definite (not possible) sightings from last year. Even the Florida group could only manage 14 between them from a year, with a solid season living in the area.

And 12 + 14 = 26. 26 bogus sight records of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. You don't need a PhD to do the math on that.

Cinclodes sounds like a math professor I had in college. The professor thought he could prove with statistics that universe was no older than 6,000 years (to coincide with his religious beliefs).